Yes. First, the interview is written partly as narrative, and it is not clear how accurate the pope’s words are or if the context they are set in is complete.

Unlike the recent interview the Pope did with La Civilta Cattolica, we do not have an indication that the Pope reviewed the Italian text prior to publication to ensure that it represented his views without distortion.

Yes. The interview is clearly being written with an agenda. At one point, Scalfari writes:

Francis - I allow myself to call him that because it is the Pope himself who suggests it by the way he speaks, the way he smiles, with his exclamations of surprise and understanding - looks at me as if to encourage me to ask questions that are even more scandalous and embarrassing for those who guide the Church.

So Scalfari says he perceives from the Pope’s body language that the pope wants him to ask scandalous and embarrassing questions?

Really?

That’s an awful lot to get out of body language.

If the Pope didn’t say, “Feel free to ask me scandalous and embarrassing questions” then how do we don’t know the Pope wasn’t just signaling friendliness and openness by his body language?

In any event, this reveals Scalfari’s goals: He was trying to generate scandalous and embarrassing material for use in his news paper.

Caveat lector. Let the reader beware.

4) What did the Pope say about converting people?

Early in the interview, the following exchange occurs:

The Pope smiles and says: "Some of my colleagues who know you [Scalfari] told me that you will try to convert me [to atheism]."

It's a joke I tell him. My friends think it is you [the Pope] want to convert me [to Christianity].

He smiles again and replies: "Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us."

Later, this exchange occurs:

[Pope Francis:] "Do you know what agape is?"

[Scalfari:] Yes, I know.

[Pope Francis:] "It is love of others, as our Lord preached. It is not proselytizing, it is love. Love for one's neighbor, that leavening that serves the common good."

Finally, the Pope later says:

I believe I have already said that our goal is not to proselytize but to listen to needs, desires and disappointments, despair, hope.

5) Does Pope Francis’s statements regarding proselytization mean that he believes we should not evangelize or convert people?

No. Pope Francis has an extremely clear focus on evangelization. To cite just the first example that came up when I did a Google search of the Vatican web site for “Francis evangelization”, Pope Francis in June said:

I would like to emphasize the importance of that Assembly’s [upcoming Synod of Bishops’ meeting] theme: “The New Evangelization for the Transmission of the Christian Faith”.

There is a close connection between these two elements: the transmission of the Christian faith is the purpose of the new evangelization and of the entire evangelizing mission of the Church which exists for this very reason.

Moreover the expression “new evangelization” sheds light on the ever clearer awareness that countries with an ancient Christian tradition also need a renewed proclamation of the Gospel to lead them back to an encounter with Christ which truly transforms life and is not superficial, marked by routine [SOURCE].

6) Isn’t proselytization the same thing as evangelization?

Although the word has historically been used this way, in recent decades a new, technical meaning for “proselytization” has emerged in ecclesiastical circles.

It is not the same thing as evangelization, and Pope Francis was not dissing evangelization in his remarks.

7) So what is “proselytization” in this new sense?

Basically, it’s trying to strong-arm people into the faith, putting undue pressure on them rather than allowing them to make a free choice for Christ.

In this connection, it needs also to be recalled that if a non-Catholic Christian, for reasons of conscience and having been convinced of Catholic truth, asks to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church, this is to be respected as the work of the Holy Spirit and as an expression of freedom of conscience and of religion. In such a case, it would not be a question of proselytism in the negative sense that has been attributed to this term.

A footnote then explains:

The term proselytism originated in the context of Judaism, in which the term proselyte referred to someone who, coming from the gentiles, had passed into the Chosen People.

So too, in the Christian context, the term proselytism was often used as a synonym for missionary activity.

More recently, however, the term has taken on a negative connotation, to mean the promotion of a religion by using means, and for motives, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel; that is, which do not safeguard the freedom and dignity of the human person.

8) So what did Pope Francis mean by his comments on proselytization?

He and Scalfari were joking about converting each other in the interview, and Pope Francis assured Scalfari that he wasn’t going to strong-arm him to convert to Christianity right in the interview.

He said that employing such strong-arm tactics is “solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other.”

Later he contrasted proselytization with the way Jesus preached the Gospel, which was based on love.

Finally, he emphasized: “I believe I have already said that our goal is not to proselytize but to listen to needs, desires and disappointments, despair, hope.”

In other words, the Pope believes that evangelization should not involve trying to strong-arm people (proselytization) but that the Gospel should be preached with love and involve a dialogue in which Christians listening to unbelievers and their concerns and help them move toward Christ through a positive demonstration of word and action.

There’s a lot more that can be said about the interview, but that will have to wait for a future blog post.

Your resorting to snarky ad hominem attacks mean nothing but empty words and hot air. That’s all I have to write about your sneer.

Posted by David on Saturday, Oct 12, 2013 9:51 PM (EDT):

Goodnight, Harry.

Posted by Harry on Saturday, Oct 12, 2013 9:46 PM (EDT):

“I have every right to say so.” - David

“He is too free with spontaneous words that are not thought out.” - David

So you’re saying you have full freedom of speech, including the right to insult the Bishop of Rome and yet at the same time you think that the current Supreme Pontiff himself should not be given the same right???

Even if my own words are not thought out, I don’t see how yours are. So what if the Pope slipped on a couple of interviews? You think you can do better? The interview is interesting, but it’s not an encyclical, much less an apostolic constitution. It doesn’t change Church doctrine or my opinions of Pope Francis one bit. He did his best to rescue hundreds of Argentinians during the Dirty War, participated in the recent March of Life in Rome just months into his papacy, and was instrumental in promulgating the Aparecida Document. Even if he misspoke, his actions speak louder than his words. You have been most unforgiving towards the Holy Father without allowing him even the slightest benefit of doubt. Even murder suspects are innocent until proven guilty.

As convoluted as your reasoning above may be, you have not convinced me that your “well-based, sincerely held opinion” is even grounded in solid facts at all. One or two interviews do not make up the whole person of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Posted by David on Saturday, Oct 12, 2013 4:48 PM (EDT):

Harry:
Looking over the past posts on this thread over the last, I came across yours to me, wherein you accuse me of “bullying tactics,” “mocking the Church,” throwing “temper tantrums,” and of lying and calumny. I believe this ugly culmination of things is the last of a series of exchanges which began with me telling you:
“Harry, with all respect, I have to disagree with your statement that Vatican II was “only a disaster if you make it out to be one.”
I frankly don’t know how to more politely express disagreement with someone.
You say I lied and was guilty of calumny because I said that “This Pope, who came in riding high on a reservoir brimming with our affection and good will, has gone out of his way to tell traditional Catholics that their faith is bourgeois, petty, and small-minded.” That’s no lie. In fact, he was the one who accused the Church — your Church and my Church — of having “locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules,” and in the same breath, said we had focused too much on abortion and gay marriage. If the Church has focused on these things too much, it’s news to me. I love this Church as much as you do, and therefore I am absolutely positive that you are as pained as I am to know that a majority of Catholics do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. To say that the Church talks too much about abortion is either to make an empirical mistake about counting or to make a worse mistake about the importance of Catholics not participating in abortion. Either way, there was a laxity on the part of the Pope that I fond very disheartening. I have every right to say so.

The next thing that got you so bent was my response to Rodinka, who said: “Jesuits are trained to think on their feet. Our Holy Father is a Jesuit… Ergo ...” I responded “Ergo THIS Jesuit was not trained well enough!” You call this a lie and calumny. It’s not; it’s my well-based, sincerely held opinion. Someone really well-trained to think on his feet does not step on them as often as the Pope did. That he did is evidenced by the millions of stout Catholics of good faith who are left wondering what the heck he’s doing, and wondering when he’ll do it again? I’m not the one who said atheists can go to heaven, or something so close to that that he invited misunderstanding. A Pope who is well trained to think on his feet is more careful not to give even the appearance of heresy. Give the reactionof millions of Christians, including me, I’d say he was not trained well enough to think on his feet. He is too free with spontaneous words that are not thought out. Has it occurred to you how may protestants who might have been on the verge of conversion were lost when he said that about atheists?

By the way, my own reflexive statement about this issue was that “Pope Francis’s comments were perfectly consistent with what has been taught by the Church since at least 1960, and probably long before that.” http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-pope-francis-say-atheists-dont-need-to-believe-in-god-to-be-saved-9-thi/#ixzz2hXdGsoDT

Next, because I asked,“Who even SUGGESTED “conversion by force”?, you say that I “seem to be implying that it is only acceptable if the Holy Father were to take a “gunboat diplomacy” approach to evangelization. But then you doubled back by saying “who even SUGGESTED?” I never doubled back on anything. My question was straightforward, though somewhat rhetorical I NEVER implied that the Pope “take a ‘gunboat diplomacy’ approach to evangelization.” And my question remains: “Who even SUGGESTED “conversion by force”?

Finally, Harry, get a grip. I greeted you with respectful disagreement, and you wound up accusing me of driving people away from the Church and engaging in diatribes and “bully tactics.” The only one who has used “diatribe” on this thread is you — four times. You seem to think I’m one of those you would call a “loony” for wanting the Latin Mass. Frankly, the non-Latin Mass I attend is perfect — PERFECT — just as it is. Novus Ordo, but half of it is sung in Gregorian Chant. Far from wanting to drive Catholics away from the faith, I freely invite non-Catholic friends to attend Mass with me so that they might become Catholic for life. And I have no gun-boats. And if I disagree with the Pope’s way of expressing himself from time to time, I’m in the company of many Catholics who are better Catholics you or me. Very good company indeed.

Posted by Harry on Friday, Oct 11, 2013 4:07 PM (EDT):

“At least you got one thing right.” - Stephen

And what might that be?

Posted by Patty Bennett on Friday, Oct 11, 2013 3:40 PM (EDT):

“Asking for clarity from the Bishop of Rome is not asking much.” That much is true, however the lack of clarity comes not from Pope Francis, but from a media that deliberately misinterprets and misrepresents nearly EVERYTHING he says.
Let’s stick with reading the Pope’s actual writings, and not second-hand information which is almost guaranteed to be distorted. Not only will we save time, we’ll have much more peace.

Posted by Sean on Friday, Oct 11, 2013 2:03 PM (EDT):

Asking for clarity from the Bishop of Rome is not asking much. Asking that he use precision when speaking to very serious issues is not asking much. Respect Francis, pray for Francis. His remarks have disturbed those who would never consider criticizing a pope. Yet the blogs and Catholic newspapers are filled with serious, devout Catholics wondering what the heck was just said? Rightly so. When the enemies of the Church are gushing with praise for his statements, well, then there is
something rotten in Denmark…..bet on it.

Posted by Stephen on Friday, Oct 11, 2013 11:35 AM (EDT):

@Harry: “Silly me.”
At least you got one thing right.

Posted by Victor on Wednesday, Oct 9, 2013 10:24 PM (EDT):

As usual Jimmy Akin, you’re doing a great job of clearing up what His Holiness actually said in laymen Catholic term for us Christians. Jeff Miller was right when he has said in so many words in some of his post, on his blog that you were doing excellent work.

Keep UP the good words and works

Posted by Harry on Wednesday, Oct 9, 2013 6:59 PM (EDT):

“Vatican II HAS changed doctrine. It is heresy.” - DeCarlo

If this is true, then the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church.

If the gates have indeed prevailed, then Christ lied when He said to Peter, “Upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

If Christ lied, then DeCarlo is telling the truth.

Silly me. Why should I worship Lord Jesus who lied to me in Sacred Scripture when I have Lord DeCarlo who tells me the truth in this comment box?

Oh, wait. No. Christ never lied. DeCarlo did.

Posted by Jack Gordon on Wednesday, Oct 9, 2013 6:16 PM (EDT):

Congratulations, DeCarlo, on your elevation! Now that you are pope, could you tell us the name of your new religious organization? Your adopted name as its new pontiff?

Posted by DeCarlo on Wednesday, Oct 9, 2013 6:11 PM (EDT):

If anyone can get into heaven, why would anyone evangelize? If I didn’t belong to any religion, why would I want to if I could get into heaven without having any religion or believing in Jesus Christ as our savior? Why would anyone want to be a Catholic if other religions can get into heaven also?

Again, the only way to father is through Jesus. Jews, Muslims, and other religions cannot get into heaven. I was taught that in Catholic school before Vatican II. Vatican II HAS changed doctrine. It is heresy.

Posted by Jack Gordon on Wednesday, Oct 9, 2013 4:08 PM (EDT):

Ernst Thalmann: You do your name (or handle, as it may be) justice: THE Ernst Thalmann was duplicitous in the extreme. You too are dallying in duplicity if you tell me with a straight face that you were brought into the faith on the basis of Rahner’s theology (inter alias) but you find that Francis is a disaster. If Pope Francis were to suddenly embrace publicly and fulsomely Rahner´s transcendental Christology, for example, I think Catholic blogs around the world would explode in a fashion to make the current furor look like a minor discussion about birding. If you really know Rahner, nothing Francis has said could upset you. You might prefer he adopt other media of communication, something less biased than La Repubblica for instance, but you could hardly demur about the content of his talk.

Posted by Harry on Wednesday, Oct 9, 2013 1:44 PM (EDT):

“This is heresy.” - DeCarlo

And just who on Earth are YOU to proclaim that the Church is falling into heresy??? Are you a bishop, or even a priest? You have no authority on that matter whatsoever, and you have wrote nothing but lies and false accusations on this comment box. And don’t lecture me about your notion of “sensus fidelium” either. It is obvious to me that you are not someone trustworthy. You have been nothing but a deceitful hypocrite and an embarrassment to the Catholic Church!

I guess your notion of what tradition is only goes back to 1570. Guess what? the Church has existed BEFORE 1570 and the Council of Trent. Take a look at what the 869-870 AD Fourth Council of Constantinople has to say about people like you who proclaim themselves the watchdogs of the Church’s orthodoxy:

“As divine scripture clearly proclaims, Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault, and does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?. Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch’s name during the divine mysteries or offices.

In the same way we command that bishops and priests who are in distant dioceses and regions should behave similarly towards their own metropolitans, and metropolitans should do the same with regard to their own patriarchs. If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church until he is converted by repentance and reconciled.”

Posted by DeCarlo on Wednesday, Oct 9, 2013 10:54 AM (EDT):

Jesus said, the only way to the father is through me. So, the church is going against the teachings of Jesus, when it says that people can be saved by their own religions or through no religion. This is heresy.

Posted by nosa on Wednesday, Oct 9, 2013 10:23 AM (EDT):

A critically look into the interview as narrated by the admin shows the pope and Scalfari are quite on the same page.and I think the admin here is even doing harm to the words of the pope. The popes word on proselytism is in complete accordance with purpose of Roman catholism. Go through the words of the popes in recent times and even the Roman cathechism you will see that of a truth “proselytism according to Roman catholic dogma is actually absolute nonesense”. When people can be save by following their religion or even no religion(atheism) in sincerity for the good of humanity, what then is the need humanity what then is the need for proselytism or converting people to another religion. The truth is that a majority of roman catholics especially, conservatives are yet to catch up with this “new definition of Evangelism”.
By the effect of vatican ii evangelism ceases from being the preaching of Jesus as the only way to Salvation but embraces pluralism and preaches sincerity and clear conscience as a criteria for salvation. While the Pope is right going by Roman catholic standard him, vatican ii and the original purpose for a Roman Universal religion is Anti- to Christ and his redemption work on Calvary tree.

Posted by vetti on Tuesday, Oct 8, 2013 8:43 AM (EDT):

It’s true that the way the pope is going about doing things is very questionable and confusing. The way I see it is he’s doing either two things like some said before. He is either becoming friendly first with the secular world and then preach to them when he sees they trust him enough or unfortunately he sees things the way he shouldnt. But I tell you this though our main focus should be on God and we need to trust in God. Dont worry so much on the pope worry about yourself if u truly are doing God’s will

Posted by Harry on Monday, Oct 7, 2013 8:47 PM (EDT):

DeCarlo,

If you truly think that you are a better Catholic as a product of that “vibrant” Church before Vatican II, that time in history which you extol so much, if you really think you and your faith have been formed better as a result, then prove it. Your repeated lies and dishonesty have not convinced me that Catholics who grew up before Vatican II are any better than those who were raised after, who never knew the 1950s, such as myself. Your continued grumbling and finger-pointing doesn’t show any speck of holiness at all. It’s useless to think that your negative pronouncements will have any sort of effect on how the Church thinks. The Church doesn’t base its decisions on diatribes like yours. Nor will you attract anybody else to Catholicism, if all they ever see in you is a joyless human being. No one wants a life without Christ’s joy. You say the Church isn’t encouraging conversions? I don’t see your attitude as encouraging conversions either.

Posted by Jack Gordon on Monday, Oct 7, 2013 7:12 PM (EDT):

No, DeCarlo, you open your eyes. The Church may have been “vibrant” before Vatican II, but there were strong indications that something was seriously wrong. Let me give you a brief tour of the Museum of Catholic Miseries. In the decades preceding the Council, we had seen German Catholics tranquilly serve one of the most immoral regimes in human history. In fact, in Austria, even Church authorities attempted to convince Franz Jagerstatter, a Catholic with a conscience, to enroll in Hitler’s army; he refused and the Nazis beheaded him. In France just previous to that time, millions of Catholics backed the arch anti-Semite Petain at Vichy, while other Catholics like Philippe Henriot thought it moral to serve the Nazi regime in Occupied France at Paris. In America, no Catholics of renown raised a voice against the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both grievously contrary to Catholic teachings about just war practices (the same can be said for extensive bombing of purely civilian targets in Germany and Japan). Later, Catholic voices were absent when the US built a “defense” system that envisioned the annihilation of millions of human beings around the globe (civilians) if ever used, and in fact, Catholics were proud to serve in organizations like the Strategic Air Command whose sole goal was….massive destruction of civilians. (We will leave aside for the moment the massive expenditure of money for armaments that this entailed, money that could not be used for charitable purposes of any kind.) And I could cite more, but I am sure you get my drift. Oh, and it wasn’t the documents of Vatican II that suddenly convinced millions of American Catholics to use condoms and later pills to limit procreation; they were fully disposed to do so before that time. The fact is, that ‘‘vibrant’’ Catholic Church you dream about was rotten through and through and had been proving it for decades for those with eyes willing to see.

Posted by DeCarlo on Monday, Oct 7, 2013 6:20 PM (EDT):

Harry, look at the church before Vatican II and look at the results after Vatican II. We went from full churches, seminaries, convents, Catholic schools, long confessional lines to empty churches seminaries, convents, Catholic schools closings at an alarming rate, and hardly anyone going to confession. There was no reason for Vatican II. The church was vibrant. It was the modernists who were trying to get into the leadership of the church in the late 1800’s. St. Pius X was trying to keep them out, because he knew what the results would be. With the election of Pope John XXIII, the modernists finally got in and we can see what a disaster is was. Open you eyes, Harry.

Posted by Harry on Monday, Oct 7, 2013 5:48 PM (EDT):

“The priest faced God, for a reason.” - David

“Don’t assume, either, that my preference is for the Extraordinary Form. It isn’t.” - David

Sorry, but I don’t think I’m understanding at all what you are trying to say here. You seem to be championing a cause for the Extraordinary Form (Ad Orientem or Ad Deum, as opposed to Versus Populum or Ad Populum) but then you say you do not prefer the Extraordinary Form. Your statements seem contradictory to one another.

And I don’t buy the idea that the real Vatican II was a disaster. Saying that it was is like blaming the murder weapon for a murder instead of the murderer who wielded the weapon. A kitchen knife can be a useful tool or a deadly weapon depending on who uses it for what. Evil is not the opposite, but the perversion, of good. Same thing with Vatican II. All of the 4 constitutions, 9 decrees, and 3 declarations that came out of it were used both by those who dutifully and faithfully executed the mandates of the council and those who decided to appropriate the documents and twist them into an abominable perversion of the real Vatican II.

If an impostor were to steal your identity, and murder someone while using your identity, and you get blamed for the murder, would you rather the police arrest you, or the impostor who stole your identity and abused it to commit evil? Those who commit liturgical abuses do the same thing with Vatican II. They took an ecumenical council and used it as license for their dissent and heresy. No one is denying that liturgical abuses or the infection of heterodoxy after Vatican II. But the real culprits behind it are those who created their own false version of Vatican II, a phantom council that was never convened, and used it to their own advantage, not the council itself.

Even criminals in court are innocent until proven guilty. It is so disheartening to see so many Catholics ignoring this basic principle of justice when it comes to Vatican II and the Popes who succeeded Pope Pius XII. Instead, these people who hate Vatican II decided to play vigilante and lynch mobs, directing their unjust, misguided anger at the council itself and all of Pius XII’s successors. Such barbarism deserves nothing but condemnation.

Posted by Jack Gordon on Monday, Oct 7, 2013 9:49 AM (EDT):

I like Fr. Uwemedimo’s last message for many reasons, but especially because it demonstrates what a lot of us have lost in the fury over Pope Francis’s remarks, viz. common sense. Fr. Paul’s last paragraph reminds me that someone in Jesus’ entourage once asked, “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” I think most of us remember who that someone was and understand why his proposal was not a good one.

Posted by Marcus on Monday, Oct 7, 2013 8:51 AM (EDT):

Fr Paul Uwemedimo,

Who in the world is advocating that we build a rich Church? Poverty for poverty’s sake is nonsense.

The reason so many are poor is because of greed. As far as I know, the riches of the Church - the beautiful places of worship, the arts, are there because the belong to posterity.

What would we have left if we were to sell them and give to the poor. We would indeed have a poor church in more ways than one.

Posted by Marcus on Monday, Oct 7, 2013 8:46 AM (EDT):

Don, Pope Benedict gave 3 very long and indepth interviews and they were brilliant. Not in the least bit confusing.

Posted by Fr. Paul Uwemedimo on Monday, Oct 7, 2013 3:50 AM (EDT):

Maybe the following sheds light on the Pope’s words that proselytizing is solemn nonsense. It is from the ZENIT website and more specifically http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/francis-the-church-is-not-an-ngo

In his daily Morning Mass, Pope Francis told the faithful present that poverty and praise of God “are the two key signs of an evangelical and missionary Church.” The Holy Father echoed that same words he said the day after his election to the papacy, warning that a rich Church can become an NGO (non-governmental organization).

The Pope reflected on the Gospel of the day, which recounted Christ’s exhortation to the Apostles on how to proclaim the Kingdom of God. Jesus’ call to go proclaim the Gospel with neither gold nor silver, he said, is Christ’s call to proclaim his Word “with simplicity.” That simplicity, the Pope continued, “gives way to the power of the Word of God, because if the Apostles had not had confidence in the Word of God, they would probably have done something else.”

Meditating on Christ’s mandate to give freely what they had received freely, Pope Francis conveyed the importance of proclaiming the Gospel as a grace, while warning that “when we leave grace a little to one side in our proclamation, the Gospel is not effective.”

“Evangelical preaching flows from gratuitousness, from the wonder of the salvation that comes and that which I have freely received I must freely give,” the Holy Father said.

“This is what they were like at the beginning. St. Peter did not have a bank account, and when he had to pay taxes, the Lord sent him to the sea to catch fish and find the money in the fish, to pay. Philip, when he met Queen Candace’s finance minister, did not think, ‘Ah, good, lets set up an organization to support the Gospel ...’ No! He did not strike a deal with him: he preached, baptized and left.”

The Holy Father also warned that in announcing the Kingdom of God “as a free gift”, there is a temptation to seek some form of strength or authority in preaching the Gospel. The temptation, he continued, cause a confusion where “proclamation becomes proselytizing.”

“The Church does not grow through proselytizing but by drawing people to her”. And this attraction comes from the testimony of those who freely proclaim the gratuity of salvation,” Pope Francis said.

“Everything is grace. Everything. And what are the signs of when an apostle lives this gratuity? There are so many, but I will underline only two: First, poverty. The proclamation of the Gospel must follow the path of poverty. The testimony of this poverty: I have no wealth, my wealth is the gift I received, God: this gratuity is our wealth! And this poverty saves us from becoming managers, entrepreneurs.”

The Church, he continued, should bring forth their works with a heart of poverty and not of an investment broker. “The Church is not an NGO,” the Holy Father exclaimed.

The Pope went on to say that the other sign of living in gratuity is praise, stressing that in praising the Lord, it is essentially a gratuitous prayer.

“These two are the signs of an apostle who lives this gratuity: poverty and the ability to praise the Lord,” the Pope concluded.

Harry says to David: “One parish. Really? One parish represents the whole Church? Even if you aren’t making this up one parish still is not the whole universal church. It’s not even the whole Church in the USA.”
Harry, you misunderstood me, or maybe I didn’t express myself well. My statement that “one parish . . . etc.” did not mean that I was extrapolating from that one parish to the entire church. In fact, my expressly limiting it to one parish where that fare was “the usual” was worded that way to make it plain I was talking only about that one church. But that does not mean I have not seen liturgical abuses at other Churches. I have.

Don’t assume, either, that my preference is for the Extraordinary Form. It isn’t.

Posted by Jun A on Monday, Oct 7, 2013 12:37 AM (EDT):

The prophecy is unfolding in our very own eyes. From the Secrets of Fatima and now the Book of Truth which can be found here: http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/.

We are now in the end times. There are more coming to this and much worse.

Posted by Ernst Thalmann on Sunday, Oct 6, 2013 1:27 PM (EDT):

@Jack Gordon, I am neither a sedavacantist propagandist nor a Latin Mass crank, just your basic believer brought into the fold in various ways though the theology of Ratzinger, von Balthasar, Kaspar, Rahner and du Lubac. And I think this guy, Francis, is just an unmitigated disaster. Once a week, Akin, taking time out from his torture advocacy, comes rushing to his defense with the most contrived and dubious papp, usually missing altogether the main thrust of the complaints of the pope’s detractors. In the process, Akin seems more a kind of press secretary, a poor man’s Jay Carney if you will, than anything else with these weekly fingers in the dike. Please, let’s call this pope what he is: An embarrassment.

Posted by Jack Gordon on Sunday, Oct 6, 2013 12:23 PM (EDT):

Over the last few days while a ‘traditionalist’ storm has plagued this site, I have thought about Pope Francis’ interview and attempted to put myself in his shoes. I notice the conversational tone of his interview and think back to the times I have chatted with atheists or Protestants about religion. In those conversations, the important thing for me was to talk first about those things we could agree on, only passing on to controversial matters after we had established a relationship. This may be what the pope is attempting with Eugenio Scalfari.

I understand that “the whole world is listening” and that many may misunderstand this approach (list me among the latter for several days). The pope must balance these dangers against the thought that, aside from what is happening in Africa and Asia, to date we have not been at all successful with our attempts to evangelize the modern world. Europe is a spiritual desert at the moment and seems to get worse every day; North America seems to want to follow the Old World’s lead. And none of us can deny that Francis has managed quite well to get the attention of people who make a profession normally of ignoring the Bishop of Rome.

The openly sedevacantist propaganda here should be ignored for the tortuous idiocy that it really is; ditto for the intellectual bile pumped out by Latin Mass cranks and pharisees. Both are rump elements in the Church that most people (properly) dismiss after a very short listen. Instead, let’s concentrate on the attempted reform of Church practices by Pope Francis. He’s not stupid and he is our pontiff. He deserves our respectful attention and—I would add—he deserves a break from all faithful Catholics (again, myself included).

Posted by Harry on Sunday, Oct 6, 2013 10:59 AM (EDT):

I don’t work for anybody. But I’m tired of the hypocrisy in some of these comments. At first I tried to ignore them but over time they only get nastier and nastier. Just because I do not have access to the Extraordinary Form or subscribe to obscure “Catholic prophecies” and Masonic conspiracy theories doesn’t mean I’m less of a Catholic than anybody else who are baptized in the Church.

I was bullied in grade school. I know what it’s like. And I am disgusted by the attitude of some of the Catholics here towards the Holy Father. They act as if they know better and are holier than him relentlessly bullying him like mean schoolchildren do, as if their attachment to tradition gives them the right to do so.

I don’t care if there are people who prefer the Extraordinary Form. I’m happy for them if they can attend that form of Mass. But if there are those among them who think they are better, holier Catholics because of that attachment to tradition, then I would like to see them prove it. So far I have seen nothing but the opposite from such people: profanity, hypocrisy, calumny, libel, dishonesty, and blasphemy. Hardly the stuff holiness is made of. If I had seen this as someone who is considering of converting to Catholicism, I would’ve turned away in disgust because of the vile behavior in these comments.

Posted by Brent Zenthoefer on Sunday, Oct 6, 2013 8:34 AM (EDT):

As a former Roman Catholic I am wondering if Jesus was engaging in proselytization or evangelization when he said “unless you repent you shall perish.” I am also wandering if the Pope’s job is to explain doctrine to the faithful, why do we need someone to the Pope to us?

Posted by Carolyn C on Sunday, Oct 6, 2013 1:29 AM (EDT):

Just wondering who Jimmy and Harry work for?

Posted by Ernst Thalmann on Sunday, Oct 6, 2013 1:05 AM (EDT):

What can you expect from an apologist that justified torture during the war in Iraq.

Posted by Patty Bennett on Friday, Oct 4, 2013 7:08 PM (EDT):

How many times does the secular media have to intentionally distort the pope’s words before we come to realize that it’s just better to read what he actually said than to freak out over someone’s faulty interpretation or poor translation of it? Yes, the pope IS Catholic. Calm down.
Sadly, it seems that some people WANT him to be wrong. Is there really any fun in that?

Posted by Harry on Friday, Oct 4, 2013 7:07 PM (EDT):

“At one parish I attended, it was the usual.” - David

One parish. Really? One parish represents the whole Church? Even if you aren’t making this up one parish still is not the whole universal church. It’s not even the whole Church in the USA. This will be like saying “all priests are pedophiles because a mere 1.7 percent of them committed pedophilia.”

I don’t care if you prefer the Extraordinary Form. I am happy for you if you have access to that form of the Mass. But you should also know that what you have is a luxury which not all Catholics, including me, are fortunate enough to have. And I would appreciate it if you would stop disparaging the form of Mass that nourished me spiritually from the day I was baptized. I am from Indonesia and I never see any Catholics there fussing over Liturgy. We are not stupid. We are grateful with what we are given and that’s that.

A Catholic should be grateful to even be able to attend a Mass of either form and receive communion. One Catholic community in Tibet can only have the Liturgy celebrated just once a year and the priest himself had to come and go quickly because of the persecution of the Church in China.

Those who grumble about the deficiencies of the Ordinary Form ought to look beyond the borders of the Western world and look at places like Tibet where even one mass in the supposedly inferior Ordinary Form is treasured like gold. Instead of wasting their time pointing out the deficiencies of the Ordinary Form they ought to praise the Lord and be grateful that they are able to have not only daily mass, but daily mass in either forms, no less! Surely if the Ordinary Form were really a hatchet job of a liturgy then Catholicism in Asia would have died out a long time ago. And yet now that continent is one of the places in the world where Catholicism is growing.

Posted by David on Friday, Oct 4, 2013 5:51 PM (EDT):

Harry:
Even America Magazine acknowledges the truth of what I said regarding “kumbaya” masses. It says: “But as Reform Jews restore their age-old customs, it is time for us to ask: in our four-decade-long zeal to make the Mass modern and relevant by burying sublime Kyries under banal Kumbayashave we also lost the vital affective side of our own religion?”

Sorry you missed the Puff reference. It explains a lot. First came the Latin Mass, then Puff, then Kumbaya. Good-bye Latin Mass. A wrenching experience for those taught to believe in the permanence, universality, and sacredness of the Mass.

Posted by David on Friday, Oct 4, 2013 5:39 PM (EDT):

“All this talk about clown masses or “kumbaya” masses… I have yet to attend such a Mass in person myself.”

Harry: I have. Several. At one parish I attended, it was the usual. My experience is far from unusual. Why would people make up such a thing? Do you think it’s a product of our imaginations?

Jimmy, thanks for your original article Oct 1 above. Helpful to me. (I do “buy” your explanation of the distinction between evangelization and proselyzation. It’s tjhe only way to make sense of the full picture, i.e., taking into account what the Pope has written and said elsewhere.)

Godespeed,

Posted by David on Friday, Oct 4, 2013 2:10 PM (EDT):

Ha! “in recent Jimmy”??? And I was just on the phone telling someone the importance of proofreading. I kid you not. What a doofus.

Anyway . . .

I wanted to address here Jimmy’s statement in the main article that “In any event, this reveals Scalfari’s goals: He was trying to generate scandalous and embarrassing material for use in his news paper.”
Jimmy, please remind the Pope with all the respect and humility you can muster that when talking to a man like Scalfari, whose goals are “to generate scandalous and embarrassing material for use in his news paper,” a Pope must be more careful with his words, not less. Same when talking to reporters on a plane.

Posted by David on Friday, Oct 4, 2013 1:53 PM (EDT):

in recent Jimmy: You said that “in recent decades a new, technical meaning for ‘proselytization’ has emerged in ecclesiastical circles.” That may be true, but that new meaning is not evident to ordinary laymen. Nor, in all probability, would the new meaning have been been evident to Scalfari, to whom the Pope was speaking. Why, then, make such a remark so easily misunderstood. If the Pope really meant “proselytizing” in that narrow sense (as you say it is understood in “ecclesisical circles”) why didn’t he simply explain that?
Finally, on what basis do you say that the word “proselytizing” has come to mean strong-arming? And if it’s true that it has come to mean that, why didn’t those in “eccliastical circles” simply choose another, more accurate word to describe that type of evangelizing. It makes one think that those in “ecclesiastic circles” are guilty of what used to be “indifferentism.” Who knows anymore? Maybe they even see “indifferentism” as a good thing.

Posted by Harry on Friday, Oct 4, 2013 1:42 PM (EDT):

I have no idea whatsoever about “Puff” in Mass. I have never seen it in any of the Masses I’ve ever been to. I am not an unthinking stupid person. I have never seen any Mass in the Ordinary Form celebrated with “kumbaya” at all in my life. All of the priests I met wear their clerical collars much more often than secular clothing, and they celebrate Mass with reverence every single day. My own aunt is a very much orthodox religious sister and she still wears her habit. The only sisters I’ve ever seen in person that don’t wear habits are those whose orders were founded without habits in the first place, such as the Daughters of the Heart of Mary.

All this talk about clown masses or “kumbaya” masses… I have yet to attend such a Mass in person myself. The only places I’ve seen such irreverence are on YouTube and on the Internet or in Protestant houses of worship. It’s obvious that such sacrilegious celebration of the Liturgy DO NOT represent the vast majority of Masses celebrated in this world. I have been to Masses in Indonesia, Netherlands, France, and the USA. In none of these places have I ever seen the Liturgy celebrated sacrilegiously. In all of the Masses I’ve ever been to in Indonesia and the USA I have yet to hear any priest mince words in their homilies. All the homilies I have ever heard are sound and they hit home to the congregation, myself included.

Do I have a problem with Ad Orientem or the Extraordinary Form? No. It’s simply that I have no access to it. I am grateful for the Ordinary Form Mass I am able to attend because I receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, the greatest gift that the Lord gives daily to mankind.

Posted by David on Friday, Oct 4, 2013 12:28 PM (EDT):

Harry, with all respect, I have to disagree with your statement that Vatican II was “only a disaster if you make it out to be one. There’s the real Vatican II and there’s the Vatican II that exists only in the imaginations of those who either cannot accept it or twist it for their own agenda.” The “real” Vatican II changed the Mass and many other things. It made “kumbaya” of what had been a solemn ritual. It made it possible for some to even challenge, without real resistance, the doctrine of real presence. Priests no longer dressed like priests, nor nuns like nuns. Mere appearances, you say. No. Priests dress the way they do for a reason. The Mass had a solemnity, for a reason. The priest faced God, for a reason. Those reasons, along with a lot of Catholics, were lost when the Church decided to go the way of Peter, Paul and Mary. I loved Puff, but the Sacrifice of the Mass was no place for him.

Posted by Harry on Friday, Oct 4, 2013 11:17 AM (EDT):

DeCarlo,

If you truly think that you are a better Catholic as a product of that “vibrant” Church before Vatican II, that time in history which you extol so much, if you really think you and your faith have been formed better as a result, then prove it. Your repeated lies and dishonesty have not convinced me that Catholics who grew up before Vatican II are any better than those who were raised after, who never knew the 1950s, such as myself. Your continued grumbling and finger-pointing doesn’t show any speck of holiness at all. It’s useless to think that your negative pronouncements will have any sort of effect on how the Church thinks. The Church doesn’t base its decisions on diatribes like yours. Nor will you attract anybody else to Catholicism, if all they ever see in you is a joyless human being. No one wants a life without Christ’s joy. You say the Church isn’t encouraging conversions? I don’t see your attitude as encouraging conversions either.

So what if Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI thinks that a reform of the reform is needed? Does it mean that it’s only the hierarchy that needs reforming, to better serve the laity? Absolutely not. If any reform of the reform is to begin it will have to come from within each and every one of the Catholic baptized faithful. This is what the Pope Emeritus, and now Pope Francis, mean when they say all Catholics need to convert daily and get closer and closer to Christ, in order for them to show to the world what it means to be a disciple of Jesus Christ.

You keep writing that Vatican II was a “disaster.” Well, it’s only a disaster if you make it out to be one. There’s the real Vatican II and there’s the Vatican II that exists only in the imaginations of those who either cannot accept it or twist it for their own agenda. You either choose to follow and think with the Church as a whole, or you drown yourself in your misguided imagination. Is the Church better after Vatican II? That really depends on YOU, ME, and every single baptized Catholic on this Earth answering the Lord’s call to holiness.

Even the Council of Trent would’ve failed had it not been for Saints such as Pope St. Pius V, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Francis Xavier, St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Robert Bellarmine, and so many other holy men and women who answered that call to holiness. The council by itself will not create instant success. It is only when its principles are CORRECTLY put into practice by the faithful that it will be successful.

Either you accept that call to become a saint or you reject it. The choice is yours.

Posted by Annie on Friday, Oct 4, 2013 9:38 AM (EDT):

JKE, nowhere did I say trads were sedevacantists. Nowhere. Many of them teeter on the edge though. That is evident by these posts here and others I’ve read elsewhere. To call Pope Francis a Judas is disgusting and deplorable. I haven’t seen Pope Francis betray Christ. As a matter of fact, he is one of the most Christ-like popes we’ve ever had. His focus is on the gospel and evangelizing, on having mercy on sinners and welcoming them instead of automatically condemning them. Obviously you missed that part of scripture where Jesus befriended social pariahs and treated them like humans.

To call the magisterium a Judas Council makes you a protestant. Perhaps you would be better suited to visit your nearest hellfire and brimstone church since that’s apparently what you’re after.

Posted by Ben in SoCal on Friday, Oct 4, 2013 9:09 AM (EDT):

Let’s remember Christian charity. If we can’t live up to the words of 1 Peter 3:15, then we should avoid debates at all cost. God bless.

Posted by DeCarlo on Friday, Oct 4, 2013 8:11 AM (EDT):

By the way, Father Feeney was recognized back into the church in 1972.

Posted by DeCarlo on Friday, Oct 4, 2013 8:09 AM (EDT):

Well, I stand correct. I’m glad that no salvation outside the Catholic church still is in force. But the way that some popes have spoken, they make it seem that any religion is on the road to heaven. Didn’t one of the popes say if you are a Muslim, Jew, etc,. be a good Muslim, Jew, etc. Why didn’t he say to them you can’t get into heaven unless you accept Jesus Christ as your savior? Why? because they don’t have the guts.

You can’t tell me that the church is better off today than it was before Vatican II. I lived before Vatican II. The church was vibrant and it did not need an “update”. Now, after Vatican II the pope wants to reform the church. So, the popes are admitting, without words, that Vatican II was not successful. Pope Benedict talked about the reform of the reform. What does that mean? It means that Vatican II was supposed to reform the church, but is did not. Now, we have to reform the disaster.

Posted by Harry on Friday, Oct 4, 2013 7:27 AM (EDT):

“I have heard clerics say that we are not trying to convert people, to change their christian denomination or religion.” - DeCarlo

Since you obviously despise Vatican II, try reading it for a while and see what it actually says, not what you think it says:

Lumen Gentium 14: “They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.”

Does this look like a statement that defies “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”? NO! Does it endorse Relativism? NO! Does it say all religions are equally salvific? NO!

And then you bring up the subject of clergy who do not preach about conversion and evangelization properly. So what? Are these the majority of priests in the world, or even in the USA alone? Do priests in general say that it is against the will of God to evangelize? Are they lax in their work of bringing souls into the Church? Again, NO to all three.

Just because a certain minority of clergy do not meet your expectations does not mean that they are representative of the whole priesthood. Your long-running bitterness against them is indicative of your unjust pronouncements against many, many Catholic priests. And no, I stand by what I wrote. Your double standard of passing off all Popes up to Pius XII and railing against his successors up to the present day, simply because the latter Popes came after Vatican II is completely hypocritical. You are doing nothing but spreading lies, lies, and more lies, endangering many souls. You write in a public forum disregarding the fact that you also represent the face of Catholicism to potential converts. Mark my words, if EVEN ONE soul is turned away from salvation in the Catholic Church because of your irresponsible polemics, YOU WILL HAVE TO ANSWER FOR IT BEFORE THE LORD.

Posted by DeCarlo on Friday, Oct 4, 2013 6:46 AM (EDT):

Father Feeney was excommunicated, not because he endorsed no salvation outside the church. He denied the baptism of blood and desire. Personally, I believe in the baptism of blood and desire.

I have heard clerics say that we are not trying to convert people, to change their christian denomination or religion.

Posted by Harry on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 7:09 PM (EDT):

“You will never hear the word “conversion” uttered by clerics. Since Vatican II, popes have said the church is not here to convert people. They use the word evangelize.” - DeCarlo

More lies. Your attempt at drawing a divide between “conversion” and “evangelization” is double-talk in and of itself. The two cannot be separated. When did the Popes start to say “stop spreading the Good News?” I don’t recall that they ever said that. Every single priest I’ve heard preach from the pulpit read all 16 documents of Vatican II and still they use the words “conversion” and “evangelization.” And so what if Lumen Gentium uses “subsistit in”? Does it say anywhere that all religions are equal and valid and salvific? NO!!! What it says is that those outside the Church have bits and pieces of the Truth, but only the Catholic Church has the fullness of Truth.

If you still persists in your denial, then how is it that Servant of God Matteo Ricci praised Confucianism in China, which, by the way, developed independently, centuries before Christianity. Did they not have parts of the Truth? Why is it that one can find all sorts of moralizing stories from all around the world, from different civilizations, many of which never knew Christianity until much later? There IS such a thing as a virtuous pagan.

By the way, Fr. Leonard Feeney, who espoused the same “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” thinking as you, was excommunicated in 1953 - LONG BEFORE Vatican II - by POPE PIUS XII. How come you’re not criticizing this pope as well? Oh, that’s right. Your standard is a DOUBLE STANDARD. All the Popes before the Council get a free pass, but those who came afterwards get trashing, DeCarlo-style. What a sad, ignorant hypocrite you are.

Posted by Harry on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 6:47 PM (EDT):

“Annie, apparently you’re not an attentive reader. I explicitly said that we traditional Catholics - that is, simply Catholics - are NOT sedevacantists. Rather, we acknowledge that the post-conciliar popes are indeed popes. But they’re Judas Popes. It’s no accident that we were given the example of Judas. There was a Judas even among The Twelve. And Peter himself momentarily became a second Judas with his triple denial of Christ.

Only those with their heads firmly buried in the sand deny that this is now the Judas Pope par excellence, himself spawned by the Judas Council of Vatican II.

Be Catholic. Reject the ceaseless flood of errors, ambiguities, and novelties flowing from the Judas Council and its disciples.” - JKE

What hypocritical nonsense. I’ve never seen so much calumny in one comment before. Just who on Earth are you, JKE, to determine what is and what isn’t a “Judas Council”? Are you supposed to be the ecclesiastical tribunal that determines which bishops are heretical, as specified in canon number 10 of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, or not?

And then, you mention “traditional Catholics.” Just who are you to determine what is and what isn’t part of “Big-T” Tradition or “small-t” tradition? When was it that name-calling and publishing libels against the Bishop of Rome became part of tradition?

It’s behavior like yours that give a bad reputation to “traditional Catholics.” One needs not be a Sedevacantist to be a hypocrite. You either acknowledge that the Pope cannot teach evil to the faithful or you go Sedevacantist. At the very least Sedevacantists are more consistent in their stance and not vacillating around like you. Hypocrisy like yours have no place in the Catholic Church!

Posted by DeCarlo on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 6:39 PM (EDT):

You will never hear the word “conversion” uttered by clerics. Since Vatican II, popes have said the church is not here to convert people. They use the word evangelize.
I still adhere to the doctrine, which has been affirmed by 3 church councils, “no salvation outside the church.” You will never hear the pope or any cleric utter those words. This doctrine was affirmed an infallible doctrine. Again, Jews, and other religions, who know about the teachings of Jesus Christ and have rejected them cannot get into heaven. These are not my words. They are words of doctrinal councils held before the pastoral Vatican II council.

What the popes have said since Vatican II is that the Church of God subsists in the Catholic church. Now, if that isn’t double talk… I attended Catholic schools before Vatican II and I never heard of the Church of God. The Catholic church is the one true church. Now, all of a sudden, we have the Church of God. Can anyone tell me where this church of God is located?

Posted by Harry on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 6:12 PM (EDT):

“This Pope, who came in riding high on a reservoir brimming with our affection and good will, has gone out of his way to tell traditional Catholics that their faith is bourgeois, petty, and small-minded.” - David

“Ergo THIS Jesuit was not trained well enough!” - David

“Conversion by force doesn’t work for obvious reasons. Jesus never forced anyone to believe his teachings.” “Who even SUGGESTED “conversion by force”?” - David

Both of the first two are what I call “lies” or “calumny.” Where has the Holy Father done this and who are you exactly to determine that he is not qualified? They show how you throw your temper tantrum around. The third one is your “double-talk.” You seem to be implying that it is only acceptable if the Holy Father were to take a “gunboat diplomacy” approach to evangelization. But then you doubled back by saying “who even SUGGESTED?”

I’m not going to play your games of “define this” or “define that.” I meant what I wrote and I won’t submit to your bullying tactics. I simply can’t stand it when I see people like you in the comment boxes rail incessantly and unjustly against the Holy Father while making a mockery of the Church. If other people were to see your diatribes, it will leave them disgusted of Catholics and Catholicism. How many souls do you need to turn away from the Church before you realize the damage you’ve done? How much damage to the Church do you have to inflict before you are finished?

For those who say the Church is teaching error: that is basically what all Protestants have been saying for 500 years. Pick your choice of the 30,000 plus varieties of Protestantism or form your own. As for the Catholic Church, when you affirm the Church taught errors ... well, you are contradicting Christ. Now if Christ’s promises of “leading us to the truth” have failed then there the whole thing is a sham and we have wasted 20 centuries in vain.

Posted by Carlos Caso-Rosendi on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 5:17 PM (EDT):

DeCarlo: You seem to have have a problem reading. I said you can’t convert anyone. You can preach, give witness to the true faith, be an example, invite. That is why we are called EKKLESIA (that is literally “calling outward”) and not ISLAM (that is “submission”). We do not convert, the Holy Spirit does. We preach, give witness. Different things.

I am a convert. I was about 10 years old at the time of Vatican II, so all I know is the post-conciliar mess. But even someone new can see that the letter of the council was not followed in all cases. Trust in God, you are not in charge of fixing such a huge problem.

By the way I preach a lot, many people have come to the faith by reading my web pages, attending talks that I give, etc. What do YOU do besides coming here and condemn everyone?

http://casorosendi.com/

http://primeraluz.org/

http://voxfidei-apologetica.blogspot.com/

http://arca-de-gracia.blogspot.com/

Posted by JKE on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 4:52 PM (EDT):

Annie, apparently you’re not an attentive reader. I explicitly said that we traditional Catholics - that is, simply Catholics - are NOT sedevacantists. Rather, we acknowledge that the post-conciliar popes are indeed popes. But they’re Judas Popes. It’s no accident that we were given the example of Judas. There was a Judas even among The Twelve. And Peter himself momentarily became a second Judas with his triple denial of Christ.

Only those with their heads firmly buried in the sand deny that this is now the Judas Pope par excellence, himself spawned by the Judas Council of Vatican II.

Be Catholic. Reject the ceaseless flood of errors, ambiguities, and novelties flowing from the Judas Council and its disciples.

Posted by David on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 4:22 PM (EDT):

Harry: You say “People like DeCarlo or David feel as if they have the absolute right to criticize anyone and everything that doesn’t fit into their worldview, but when others criticize them instead, they throw a tantrum or use double-talk to try to justify their inexcusable behavior.”

I’d like to know what I’ve said that constitutes either a “tantrum” or “double-talk.” You accuse me of “inexcusable behavior.” Say what I’ve done to justify that accusation, or go down as a reckless accuser yourself.

Posted by Janet O'Connor on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 3:57 PM (EDT):

To my understanding the phrase of Outside the Church there is no salvation is True yet since Vatican II there came this idea of interfaith and ecumenical dialogue. Has it worked? Are Christians becoming one as Jesus said. I found out just recently that the theological advisors at Vatican II deliberately put hazy confusing language in the text which explains why there is so much confusion. Francis things the state of the Church is great, and that may be true in the third world but not the West. There is no doubt this Jesuit Pope has no tolerance for traditional Catholics or even Tradition in general. They are always being called names. Where is the openness and welcoming for them? They are the enemy.

Posted by Harry on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 3:12 PM (EDT):

“We used to use the word conversion, in other words, try to bring other to our Catholic faith. The church doesn’t use the word anymore.” - DeCarlo

Another bare-faced lie courtesy of DeCarlo. How long are you going to keep up throwing these despicable calumnies and untruth of yours? All I have seen is that the Pope along with bishops like Cardinals Dolan, DiNardo, and O’Malley are working hard every day to evangelize both non-Catholics and Catholics alike. They’re not here to give you, DeCarlo, satisfaction of your desires. They are here to carry out their mission of shepherding the flock. I have seen only a tiny minority of priests who don’t actively, vigorously preach about constant conversion and evangelization and witnessing from their pulpits. But obviously you just don’t want to know. You just wish to attack madly all those who don’t fit into your worldview. You have been nothing but deceitful in this comment box and your vile libels against the Holy Father and the Church show this! What a sad human being you must be. Pity you and everybody else who are like you.

Posted by DeCarlo on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 3:00 PM (EDT):

I didn’t mention conversion by force. We used to use the word conversion, in other words, try to bring other to our Catholic faith. The church doesn’t use the word anymore.

Posted by Harry on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 2:55 PM (EDT):

People like DeCarlo or David feel as if they have the absolute right to criticize anyone and everything that doesn’t fit into their worldview, but when others criticize them instead, they throw a tantrum or use double-talk to try to justify their inexcusable behavior. Typical behavior of self-righteous, self-pitying hypocrites who hide behind the veneer of “tradition.” Their conduct in this comment box is no different than that of school bullies who bad-mouth anyone who won’t kowtow to them. I pray that I never ever meet them in real life.

It would seem that DeCarlo is suggesting some kind of forcefulness to convert people. He is claiming that the Catholic Church doesn’t advocate conversion and that is false. If that were the case, you would have no RCIA or missionaries.

Posted by David on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 2:22 PM (EDT):

“Conversion by force doesn’t work for obvious reasons. Jesus never forced anyone to believe his teachings.” Who even SUGGESTED “conversion by force”?

Posted by Dee on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 2:16 PM (EDT):

The scramble to re-interpret this Pope’s quite pointed comments to fit back into the old clothes we find most comfortable is not surprising. It reminds me of the effort of too many pastors to reassure the flock the point of the Lazarus and the rich man, last week’s Sunday gospel, has nothing to do with money and certainly isn’t a condemnation of being rich. Next time you hear a homily on that gospel, just wait for it; sadly, you probably won’t be disappointed. While it is certainly helpful to have Mr. Akin and other commentators point out the congruity of the Pope’s words with existing Catholic doctrine, it really isn’t necessary to re-interpret him, as many say must be done. He is an intelligent man, well-versed in church matters and led by the Holy Spirit. Much of what he says is challenging and he obviously means for it to be so. Abortion is a sin and an important issue. But he is clearly repudiating the position that it is the most important evil to be fought today. If that confuses you, pray about it and talk to a spiritual director - it is possible that you have been ill-advised on this issue in the past. The future lies ahead and we will find that we have all been wrong about something. A willingness to continuous conversion is part of the Christian vocation. Embrace it with joy and pray for our Pope as he leads us to where God wants us to be. Christ’s peace in all things.

Posted by Annie on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 1:50 PM (EDT):

You evangelize the person, then pray for his conversion. I’m not sure what you want Catholics to do…go into a mosque or temple and hold a gun to their heads?

Again, Jesus never forced anyone to convert. He preached the gospel and those who listened converted. There hasn’t been much that’s changed in that arena to my knowledge.

Posted by Harry on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 10:48 AM (EDT):

“Annie, the word conversion is not used in the church today. What the church should be doing is trying to convert other religions, including the Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah. I agree we should be talking to them, but also trying to convert them. The church said that they won’t do that.” - DeCarlo

Good grief! Must you have EVERY single thing, even the obvious spelled out for you by the Church??? Evangelizing EVERYONE has been the primary mission of the Church ever since it came into being. It’s something EVERY Catholic should already know by themselves. Conversion is not used by the Church today? The how come I hear it every day from the pulpit and from the Pope’s Angelus and general audiences? I’m told repeatedly and repeatedly to not only convert others, but myself as well! Every day! If that were true then why is there a Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization? If that were true then how was it at World Youth Day this year there were many, many young people lining up to receive the Sacrament of Penance in portable confessionals?

Lies, lies, lies. That’s what all your attacks have been. Have you so little hard facts that now you must make things up for your own advantage? You lock yourself up in your bunker full of hatred and you deceive everyone by your dishonesty. Such a pathetic and pitiful attitude does not belong anywhere, least of all inside a Catholic!!!

Posted by Harry on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 10:24 AM (EDT):

“I’m referring to the West, especially the USA.” - DeCarlo

So? Is the Church just the West? Is it just the USA? The church in this country may have problems, but so what? The Church didn’t even begin in Europe. It began in 1st-century Judea. Was there ever a perfect hierarchy in the first place? Was there ever a perfect utopia Church where everybody in the world is a saint? If there ever was one I’d like to see that. You simply fail to see that how the Church is doing in one place will not be the same as in other countries. When the Protestant Reformation was going on in Europe, the Church boomed in Central America.

And no. The Church did not self destruct with Vatican II. Secularization in society built up long before the 1960s. After all, those people who made the Sexual Revolution possible were themselves all raised in the Church BEFORE Vatican II. All the bishops who attended Vatican II knew only the Extraordinary Form. And it’s not like it’s something new to twist legitimate Church documents for heretical agendas. The Gnostics did this with Scripture. So did the Arians, Monophysites, Nestorians, Monothelites, Carpocratians, Borborites, Collyridians, and so many other heretical groups.

Your claims are baseless. Christ NEVER said that the Church is an executive club for saints. It’s a field hospital for sinners. It has a lot of problems since its very beginning. Deal with it.

Posted by DeCarlo on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 10:04 AM (EDT):

Harry, I’m referring to the West, especially the USA. I’m very glad to see that Africa and other countries have seen the light.

Posted by DeCarlo on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 10:02 AM (EDT):

Annie, the word conversion is not used in the church today. What the church should be doing is trying to convert other religions, including the Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah. I agree we should be talking to them, but also trying to convert them. The church said that they won’t do that.

Posted by Harry on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 10:01 AM (EDT):

“Before Vatican II, Catholics were supposed to try and convert people to the Catholic faith. Since Vatican II, and ecumenism, that is no longer the case.” - DeCarlo

Another lie. If that were true then how come the Church is growing fast in places like South Korea and Nigeria? If that were true then how come the Dominican Sisters of Mary Mother of the Eucharist in Michigan is experiencing a vocation boom? If that were true then how come Popes from Blessed John Paul II to Francis actively promoted the “New Evangelization?”

You can try to cover up your calumnies with flimsy justification, but you yourself continually lay bare your own naked hypocrisy. People like you are the reason why the Extraordinary Form isn’t more widely available. You continuously scandalize the faithful by attacking the bishops who could’ve been your allies in spreading the Extraordinary Form and publishing baseless accusations against the Holy Father. “By their fruits you shall know them.” And yours is nothing but repulsive, rotten fruit.

Posted by Annie on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 9:56 AM (EDT):

DeCarlo, I respectfully disagree. How do you explain the new evangelization? No one said we aren’t converting or helping people to learn more about the faith. The RCIA program at our parish is very strong. There are over 30 people in the master catechist program to teach the faith, so I’m not sure where you’re getting this information. We still have Catholic missionaries. Conversion by force doesn’t work for obvious reasons. Jesus never forced anyone to believe his teachings.

Posted by Ben in SoCal on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 9:52 AM (EDT):

I agree with the moral teachings of the Church, and I stay Catholic because my wife is Catholic. I’m not going to introduce division in our new marriage.

Posted by DeCarlo on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 9:52 AM (EDT):

Harry, look at the results of Vatican II-35% attendance rate, compared to a 90% attendance rate, empty seminaries and convents, compared to full seminaries and convents, full capacity Catholic schools, compared to closing of Catholic schools left and right, long lines at confession, compared to almost non-existent lines at confession, cafeteria Catholics, (55% approve of abortion and gay marriage) compared to a very small group of cafeteria Catholics pre-Vatican II. Priests and nuns teaching doctrine contrary to the doctrines of the church ( a priest was excommunicated for his pro-choice, pro- gay, teachings). According to EWTN, out of about 200 Catholic colleges, only about 20 are true to the Catholic teachings. Again, Vatican II was a disaster. Please prove otherwise.
The church has now abandoned the infallible doctrine, no salvation outside the church, with its “ecumenism”.

Posted by DeCarlo on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 9:43 AM (EDT):

Carlos-Caso, Jesus said, go forth and preach to all nations. Before Vatican II, Catholics were supposed to try and convert people to the Catholic faith. Since Vatican II, and ecumenism, that is no longer the case.

Posted by Harry on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 9:42 AM (EDT):

“I respect the papacy, but I have little respect for the persons who have occupied the papacy since Vatican II.” - DeCarlo

More contradictory nonsense. That’s like saying “I love Jesus but I hate the Church.” It is not possible to separate the two. The Papacy and the occupant are different things but never separate.

“Vatican II was a disaster for the church.” - DeCarlo

By whose standard? Yours? And just who are you and what authority do you possess to proclaim such and such Ecumenical Councils as failures in and of themselves? Your angry tirades against Vatican II and the successors of Pius XII have been nothing but scandal-causing, libelous calumny. How is it that you never criticize the other Ecumenical Councils like Nicaea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Florence? The first four of these had chaotic aftermaths as well and Florence failed to end the East-West Schism.

And what of that Council of Jerusalem that abolished circumcision? Would you call that a disaster as well for breaking with millennia-old tradition and angering the Judaizers? Why do you attack Pope Francis but give a free pass to St. Peter who not only abandoned Christ but also denied Him three times? The Pope and the Church is here to minister to the flock and feed the sheep, not to kowtow to the demands of hypocrites hiding behind “tradition” like you who want the Pope to do your bidding.

Pity you. And I feel sorry for anybody who have been driven away from converting to the Catholic faith because of your writings. It’s a good thing that it’s still the Catholic Church and not DeCarlo’s Church.

Posted by Carlos Caso-Rosendi on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 9:21 AM (EDT):

On “proselytism”: Jesus did not send us to convert people. He sent us to the nations to be His witnesses, to live the Gospel and be a model for others of what a citizen of the Kingdom of the Heavens looks like. Proselytizing never worked because there is no material advantage to becoming a bearer of the Cross. The mystery of conversion is an inner move of the Holy Spirit brought about by our witness of the good news of Jesus Christ. Witness, yes. Proselytizing, no. We are in this to gain souls for Christ, not simply to fill in the pews with warm bodies. That is the meaning of the candlelight Mass during Easter. We are to set hearts on fire and for that purpose we have to be on fire ourselves and bear witness.

Posted by Carlos Caso-Rosendi on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 9:16 AM (EDT):

I thank my ancestors for teaching me the Italian language so I can see how the words of the Pope are distorted in the evil style of the Sanhedrin: “He said he would destroy the Temple!” etc. I believe Jesus is still praying so that the faith of Peter won’t fail. I also believe in being CATHOLIC that is to have three of three: Eucharistic Lord + Most Holy Virgin Mary + Holy Father in Rome. If any of those three are lacking in your faith YOU ARE NOT CATHOLIC. If CHARITY is lacking in your life and your witness becomes that disgusting “holier than thou” attitude so present in these comments and in the life witness of so many in the “Catholic personalities sphere” then you know Who you are going to have to face one day and give an account of your actions. As for me and my house we shall serve the Lord. Some of us do not need to make an idol of this or that form of the Mass. The Lord can come to me in any manner He wishes to allow. I won’t be tricked into counterpoints between Benedict and Francis for I love them both and I hear them carefully. You are fine with some fat bishop having dinner with Obama three times a year BUT you neat pick on Francis. You are Protestants, that’s what you are.

Posted by DeCarlo on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 9:13 AM (EDT):

The ordinary form of the mass is as valid as the extraordinary mass. But I prefer the EF. Secondly, I respect the papacy, but I have little respect for the persons who have occupied the papacy since Vatican II. I believe they are all holy men, but Vatican II was a disaster for the church, and the popes since have considered it a success. Just look at the results of Vatican II.

Posted by Harry on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 9:02 AM (EDT):

“More and more I see that the Orthodox were right in protesting Rome’s imperial dispositions.” - Ben in SoCal

Well, why don’t you just join them already? No one’s stopping you.

Posted by Ben in SoCal on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 8:50 AM (EDT):

It appears to me that the common thread is that traditional folks don’t agree with the domineering nature of the Roman papacy when it concerns granting or denying traditional forms of the Mass.

More and more I see that the Orthodox were right in protesting Rome’s imperial dispositions.

Posted by Harry on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 8:24 AM (EDT):

A Catholic should be grateful to even be able to attend a mass of either form and receive communion. One Catholic community in Tibet can only have the liturgy celebrated just once a year and the priest himself had to come and go quickly because of the persecution of the Church in China.

Those who grumble about the deficiencies of the Ordinary Form ought to look beyond the borders of the Western world and look at places like Tibet where even one mass in the supposedly inferior Ordinary Form is treasured like gold. Instead of wasting their time pointing out the minuses of the Ordinary Form they ought to praise the Lord and be grateful that they are able to have not only daily mass, but daily mass in either forms, no less! Surely if the Ordinary Form were really a hatchet job of a liturgy then Catholicism in Asia would have died out a long time ago. And yet now that continent is where Catholicism is growing.

Posted by Tracy Tucciarone on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 8:09 AM (EDT):

@Annie, I love the TLM, too, and think it’s just beautiful. I think the Novus Ordo Mass is valid, of course (as does almost everyone at my forum), but think it pales in comparison in terms of beauty, catechetical qualities, signs of Mystery and the Sacred, the quality of the prayers and Scripture readings (the newer readings leave out a lot when it comes to mention of sin, Hell, etc., unlike the old readings). Anyway! I agree with you about the lack of respect for the Holy Father (I mean, respectful criticism is one thing, but some of the stuff I read, at my own forum, is over the top). Not much I can say about that! But there are also some great folks who post there—and the FishEaters site itself is —well, a lot of folks find it very helpful :)

Posted by Annie on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 7:31 AM (EDT):

Tracy I meant no offense. However you can look for yourself at the number of current threads dissing the holy father. Honestly I don’t frequent a lot of Catholic forums or Catholic blogs so I can’t comment on those. Here’s something that might surprise you, I actually attend a traditional Latin Mass every Sunday (high Mass). I love it! I just don’t like the arrogance from some people who think that’s the only right way to attend Mass. While I do like the reverence at the TLM, Jesus is present in the Eucharist at all parishes!

Posted by Tony Pelletier on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 7:01 AM (EDT):

Thank you, Jimmy !

Posted by Harry on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 6:21 AM (EDT):

Canon number 10 from the Fourth Council of Constantinople explicitly provides the right to due process for any accusations of heresy leveled against members of the hierarchy, and forbids anyone other than the competent authorities from passing judgment:

“As divine scripture clearly proclaims, Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault, and does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?. Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch’s name during the divine mysteries or offices.

In the same way we command that bishops and priests who are in distant dioceses and regions should behave similarly towards their own metropolitans, and metropolitans should do the same with regard to their own patriarchs. If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church until he is converted by repentance and reconciled.”

Posted by Harry on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 6:06 AM (EDT):

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/is-the-pope-catholic/

Note: The “obscure bull” in question is called “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.” It was issued by Pope Paul IV, who suspected Giovanni Cardinal Morone of secretly being a Protestant. However, the Cardinal was later cleared of all the charges against him and remained in good standing with the Church. The canon from the Fourth Council of Constantinople referenced here is Canon number 10.

According to William Marshner, professor of theology at Christendom College in Virginia, sedevacantists base their argument on an obscure bull issued in the 1550s by Pope Paul IV which pronounced excommunication against anyone who secretly held any sort of heresy. Anyone in the hierarchy who was even suspected of heresy was deprived of office.

“It was a very weird document,” Marshner said, noting that it was issued during the very tumultuous time of the Reformation. “No reputable theologian today thinks that it was anything but canonical legislation — a disciplinary thing.”

But the sedevacantists today “try to inflate it to a doctrinal level so that it can’t be canceled by later pontiffs,” Marshner said. “They’ll go through statements of Pope John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II. Their current target is Benedict XVI. They will decide what is heretical in those statements and use their findings to claim that this person should be deprived of all ecclesiastical office and therefore can’t be pope.

“They seem be unaware,” he continued, “of an important canon from the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, which says that you can’t accuse your ecclesiastical superior of heresy or of a crime without a canonical process. You can’t set yourself up as judge and jury.”

Posted by Tracy Tucciarone on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 3:42 AM (EDT):

@ Annie: Please don’t diss FishEaters.com because some posters at its associated discussion forum are disrespectful toward the Holy Father. A discussion forum is just that, and I assure you that the VAST majority of people who post there are NOT sedevacantist. That said, I lament, along with you, that SOME posters post about our Pope with no prudence and a distinct lack of respect. But I find it sad that some folks who have no problem trashing FishEaters because of what some posters say wouldn’t do the same to other perfectly good websites with discussion forums, or blogs that allow comments, some of which the owners of said places disagree with.

The FishEaters website is designed for Catholics who worship according to the 1962 liturgy and calendar (e.g., folks who worship at Masses offered by the FSSP). The site itself is 100% orthodox (check it out for yourself!. If the discussion forum bothers you (and know, I assure you, it sometimes bothers even me), just ignore it. But please don’t diss years and years of my work, my website itself, its name and reputation, because some folks at the discussion forum can be nasty—said nastiness not being reflective of my attitude, and its having nothing whatsoever to do with what I, the site owner, think. Thanks :)

Posted by Christopher on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 1:56 AM (EDT):

Hey Chris, “I told you so.”

PS I believe that the Holy Spirit was guiding Pope Paul IV when he stated in a papal bull that it is possible that a heretic or another type of illegitimate candidate COULD be elected. Do you? On second thought, maybe that’s when the Holy Spirit left the Church, considering we are in the New Pentecost (blasphemy). It had to leave at some point in order to come back, right?

Posted by Christopher on Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 1:38 AM (EDT):

This Pope worship has got to stop. Jesus is the head of the Catholic Church. The pope has no authority to change Jesus’ laws or commands. The pope is His vicar. A vicar’s duty is to keep the thing left to his charge (in this case the Church) exactly the same as it was before. Obviously Francis doesn’t like the Church that Jesus left him, and wants to change everything he can get away with. “Call me Jorge”, “I’m gonna ride the bus instead”,“I’m not taking that silly papal oath”, etc. Grow up! Maybe he should start by getting confession back?
None of this matters because he’s a member of the Rotary Club, which is considered by the Church to be a society akin to Freemasonry… you know, called the “Synagogue of Satan” by past popes. Doesn’t this carry automatic excommunication? (yes it does) It does make sense though, considering he celebrates Hanukah. Isn’t ‘communion in sacred things’ with heretics a mortal sin against the faith? What’s next? Is Francis going to send people menorah’s as Barmitzfah gifts, like John Paul II did? Good catholics should want the man deposed! Lukewarm catholics will just keep being spinsters because it’s easy. We recently (WYD) had a mass, if it can even be called that, that featured CLOWNS ON STILTS. Yes… CLOWNS ON STILTS. Good catholics should get angry at this mockery! But I didn’t here a peep from the spinsters. Well, where were ya Jimmy? Fr. Z?
But don’t worry, just keep talking about how sinful and disobedient people like me are, and how holy and obedient people like you are for remaining silent.

Posted by Chris on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 10:11 PM (EDT):

Thank you Jimmy for clarifiying what the Pope actually said. I do find some of his off the cuff statements though a bit troublesome. It seems like every week now since he has been elected as Pope, someone or several catholic media folks every week have to scramble to explain what he actually said. The secularist’s, liberal’s, hedonists & progressives are jumping all over it as if he is the Pope who will finally shape the church into the world’s view & not the world into God’s calling for building His Kingdom. The ones who beleive that no pope since Vatican II were ligitimate popes will be heard to say, “See I told you so” & say VII is proof that HS is not truly at work in selecting a valid pope.
Just something to ponder.

Posted by Harry on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 9:29 PM (EDT):

Wow. Such nice things to say about the Holy Father. If he ever comes to the United States and try to reach out to the people who wrote these nasty comments they would probably pick up big rocks and throw them at him.

If the Pope did anything unsettling, it’s only because he has successfully exposed people like DeCarlo and David for what they are: Hypocrites hiding behind “tradition”. I would not be surprised if these comments scare some people away from Catholicism. I know I’d be too afraid to convert if I were new to Catholicism and all I ever saw of it were naked, unrestrained wrath like David’s. After all, if even the Pope cannot be Catholic enough to people like David, who on Earth possibly can?

Posted by David on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 9:00 PM (EDT):

“Jesuits are trained to think on their feet. Our Holy Father is a Jesuit… Ergo ...”

Ergo THIS Jesuit was not trained well enough!

Posted by David on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 8:53 PM (EDT):

“Like our Blessed Lord Himself, whose Vicar he is on earth, our good and humble pope, Francis has been misinterpreted, misunderstood, reviled and scorned by those who have no idea about what he is talking about. I won’t be surprised if somebody calls him next the very Devil himself, as our Lord was in his time.”

Please, we may not have theology degrees, but we’re not stupid. This Pope, who came in riding high on a reservoir brimming with our affection and good will, has gone out of his way to tell traditional Catholics that their faith is bourgeois, petty, and small-minded. We who believe that proselytizing is what Jesus wanted the Apostles to do rather bristle at the Pope’s words. We’ve just about had enough.

Posted by David on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 8:46 PM (EDT):

To the man who referenced Malachi Martin:

Hear! Hear! As a Jesuit boy myself, and having read Martin’s book 25 years ago, I know exactly what you mean. The Jesuits were once a wonderful order. They are now an enemy of the Church. They and their damned liberation theology have to be rooted out and exposed, or they will destroy the Church.

David
AMDG

Posted by David on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 8:39 PM (EDT):

“What I see Pope Francis doing, by clever contrast, is stepping out of the way of the door. And when they come inside, he’ll slam it shut and lock it.”

More wishful thinking. Just how is Francis going to slam the door shut and lock it? When the people who’ve been lured into the Church by PF’s non-judgmentalism and squishy liberalism realize they’ve been duped—- IF it’s Francis’s aim to dupe them—- they’ll simply leave.

Posted by David on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 8:25 PM (EDT):

Frater Bovious says: “If people are genuinely confused about what the Pope has to say, perhaps they should deepen their knowledge of the faith.”

I would genuinely like to know, Frater, who you would un-confuse me with your knowledge of the faith. Please, take any of his five most controversial statements, and explain how a deeper knowledge of the faith would remove the confusion. Please do include his comment on atheists going to heaven.

Posted by David on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 8:20 PM (EDT):

The question was: “Do people forget that Christ dined with sinners?”

No. We remember that. What we don’t remember was Jesus saying, “You’re cool just the way you are, bro.”

Posted by David on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 8:13 PM (EDT):

It is getting harder and harder to reconcile the Pope’s words with traditional Catholicism, and pretty soon, intellectually honest conservatives will stop trying. He is not a “right winger,” he tells us; all this “obsession” with gay marriage, abortion, and silly rules has to stop, he tells us; atheists can go to heaven; “who’s to judge?”; and today, more: proselytizing is “solemn nonsense.” NARAL and Obama love him.

Look, we shouldn’t keep our heads in the sand much longer. The small bit of ground that traditionalists had labored to recover over the past 40 years has been re-captured in a scant 6 months. No amount of preaching about the difference between doctrine and pastoralism can paper over what is happening here.

Posted by MarieJean on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 8:13 PM (EDT):

@Johannes You have beautifully expressed so succinctly what my thoughts are and what I feel is the spirit of Pope Francis actions and words. Thank you.

‘And we positively know that Francis had those words from Benedict XVI in mind during the interview because last Friday (Sept 23) he said this to the participants in the international congress on catechesis:
“So keep this in mind: I didn’t say to do the “work” of catechists, but to “be” catechists, because this is something that embraces our whole life. It means leading people to encounter Christ by our words and our lives, by giving witness. Remember what Benedict XVI said: “The Church does not grow by proselytizing; she grows by attracting others”. And what attracts is our witness. Being a catechist means witnessing to the faith, being consistent in our personal life. This is not easy! We help, we lead others to Jesus with our words and our lives, with our witness. I like to recall what Saint Francis of Assisi used to say to his friars: “Preach the Gospel at all times; if necessary, use words”. Words come… but witness comes first: people should see the Gospel, read the Gospel, in our lives. To “be” a catechist requires love, an ever stronger love for Christ, a love for his holy people.”

We are “to BE the Sacrament of Christ” to our world.

Posted by Kevin on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 8:06 PM (EDT):

charles harmett,

In the interview Pope Francis referenced Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, the Gospels, and Church Fathers like Augustine. elsewhere he stated the Churches most important role was to follow “the mystery of the moon”, which is how St. Ambrose described the model on which the Church reflects Christ.

His emphasis on the Incarnation in the previous dialogue with the atheist comes right from Athanasius, and he told the interviewee that Christians live out the Incarnation by joining Christ in suffering for the lost and exiled, which comes straight from Tertullian.

With all due respect, it might help to actually read up on what he is saying.

Posted by bossmanham on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 7:38 PM (EDT):

You know, this having to reinterpret and rescue this new pope from his own words is becoming a habit for Catholics lately. I’m an evangelical protestant, but I have strong ecumenical leanings (like I married a Catholic). But this is getting ridiculous, and it’s getting pretty hard to buy explanation after obfuscation. Either the Pope is the least media savvy person on the planet who can’t help but be terribly ambiguous and confusing to his audience, or he’s actually fairly liberal. It’s getting hard for me to buy he’s just misspeaking or being misinterpreted.

This never happened to Benedict.

Posted by Harry on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 6:43 PM (EDT):

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION

523 St. John the Baptist is the Lord’s immediate precursor or forerunner, sent to prepare his way.196 “Prophet of the Most High”, John surpasses all the prophets, of whom he is the last.197 He inaugurates the Gospel, already from his mother’s womb welcomes the coming of Christ, and rejoices in being “the friend of the bridegroom”, whom he points out as “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”.198 Going before Jesus “in the spirit and power of Elijah”, John bears witness to Christ in his preaching, by his Baptism of conversion, and through his martyrdom.199

Posted by Harry on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 6:23 PM (EDT):

Posting prophecies in the public forum creates its own difficulties. Not every Catholic believes or even knows about these private revelations. And mixing them up with Masonic conspiracy theories create confusion. Not everyone who reads NCRegister is even Catholic.

Posted by Johannes on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 5:48 PM (EDT):

... and Benedict XVI’s homily was on May 13, 2007, not May 3.

Posted by Johannes on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 5:44 PM (EDT):

Typo: Francis’ address to the international congress on catechesis was last Friday Sept 27 (not 23).

Quote from Benedict XVI’s May 3, 2007 homily in the Mass of Opening of the General Conference of Latin American Bishops (which at that time Cardinal Bergoglio was) in the Sanctuary of Aparecida, Brazil:

“The Church does not engage in proselytism. Instead, she grows by “attraction”: just as Christ “draws all to himself” by the power of his love, culminating in the sacrifice of the Cross, so the Church fulfils her mission to the extent that, in union with Christ, she accomplishes every one of her works in spiritual and practical imitation of the love of her Lord.”

I did not quote Benedict XVI’s homily to argue for the correctness or usefulness or even cost/benefit ratio of Pope Francis’ statement. I just want to show that he was not the first to discard proselytism. Moreover, in contrast with Francis’ interview, Benedict XVI’s homily had magisterial character, though of course not infallible.

And we positively know that Francis had those words from Benedict XVI in mind during the interview because last Friday (Sept 23) he said this to the participants in the international congress on catechesis:

“So keep this in mind: I didn’t say to do the “work” of catechists, but to “be” catechists, because this is something that embraces our whole life. It means leading people to encounter Christ by our words and our lives, by giving witness. Remember what Benedict XVI said: “The Church does not grow by proselytizing; she grows by attracting others”. And what attracts is our witness. Being a catechist means witnessing to the faith, being consistent in our personal life. This is not easy! We help, we lead others to Jesus with our words and our lives, with our witness. I like to recall what Saint Francis of Assisi used to say to his friars: “Preach the Gospel at all times; if necessary, use words”. Words come… but witness comes first: people should see the Gospel, read the Gospel, in our lives. To “be” a catechist requires love, an ever stronger love for Christ, a love for his holy people.”

Posted by Carolyn C on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 5:31 PM (EDT):

Regarding prophecy. St. Paul said1 Thess. 5:19-22, St. Paul says: “Do not extinguish the Spirit. Do not despise prophecy” Our Rosary comes from private revelation. True that is not required to believe private revelation, but consider Isaiah. His prophecy predicted the coming of Christ 700 years before Christ came. But many during the time of Christ refused to believe that Jesus Christ was Our Lord and Savior. God speaks to us through his Holy Followers. Consider all the Holy Saints who are found to be uncorrupt have given our Church prophecy. But sadly, the Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and to Our Lady of Fatima has not been emphasized since Vatican II. Why? The Church approved them and said they are worthy of belief, so why not promote them? I never said they were Dogma nor do I aim to confuse. By the way, you are saying John the Baptist was the last prophet? So you are completely dismissing St. Paul as a prophet, and for that matter, Our Lord Jesus Christ was a prophet. So to say that John the Baptist was the last prophet is completely wrong and in error.

Posted by Ben in SoCal on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 5:20 PM (EDT):

Well, at least this should mark the death of alleged papal worship- papalatry- so common among traditionalists and conservatives. I’m glad to see so many Ross Douthat, key American Catholic writer, proclaimed this, and I can agree fully.

Several good things can come from any confusion or consternation experienced – and any joy and excitement – over the words and gestures of Pope Francis in interviews, homilies, speeches, etc.:

1) First, we can acquire and develop a fresh appreciation for the Person and the Message of Jesus Christ and for the transmission of the Christian Faith through the magisterial teachings of the Church He founded for our good and salvation – Faith that has come to us from Christ through Peter to Francis and his successors. We can go back and see what has been taught and stated by previous popes, avoiding the tendency to “presentism” and the media’s tendency to make any and all statements sound completely new, especially when Pope Francis is actually quoting one or more of his predecessors even when making little or no reference to teachings on a given matter – be it the “feminine genius” or proselytism or mercy and welcome or reform and renewal or any of the other issue which the Church has addressed to some degree and in some manner before. We can also choose to avoid the tendency humans seem to have since Cain and Abel to compare – and kill.

2) Second, we can acquire and develop a fresh appreciation for the “art” of evangelization which must always motivated by the love of God that has been poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5), especially the beautiful intricacies and challenges we face in effectively carrying out a New Evangelization for the Transmission of the Christian Faith – as the October 2012 Synod was titled – so that with a fresh appreciation and some learning and practice we may all – at last! – communicate the Faith of the Church to our peers inside and outside the Church by, with, in, and for love of God and neighbor.

3) Third, we can acquire and develop a fresh appreciation for how seriously we must all take the Pope’s request to pray for him. He really needs it, as he himself has stated more than once an in no uncertain terms.

Many more lessons and blessings can come from observing and understanding and even dialoguing respectfully about the current papal style of speaking and relating to insiders and outsiders, and his style of governance and pastoring and confirming the brethren. A good time to pray and study, observe and learn, and to…

KEEP CALM and KNOW THY FAITH.

United in Christ for a New Evangelization from sea to shining sea,

Martha Fernández-Sardina
Prepare The Way Enterprises
Remember You Are Loved
www.RememberYouAreLoved.com
http://iEvangelize.WordPress.com/
www.Vimeo.com/MarthaFernandeSardina

Posted by Jacob S on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 5:16 PM (EDT):

@Charles, first post -
-
He references scripture, and tradition every time he says something that is true and contained therein. Not every conversation the Pope has needs to be footnooted to within an inch of its life with where each idea has come from.
-
Come on guys. The pope is Catholic. Stop assuming he isn’t just so you can assume your own self-aggrandizing doomsday theory is true. I swear, if the Onion published an article right now saying that Pope changed his name to Peter and abolished all future papacies, some people would believe it without a second thought.

Posted by Schultz on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 5:15 PM (EDT):

Jimmy Akin didn’t read the transcript of the interview at the source of the interview. I did. He came very close to approving liberation theology; some of his comments were very New Age; he obviously is completely unaware of the major problems within the Church of a critical lack of catechesis across all age groups—according to the pope, the most serious issues facing the Church are “youth unemployment & the loneliness of the old.” Sorry, Holy Father, but we are facing severe problems in areas of catechesis, homosexual attacks within & outside of the Church, persecution of Catholics in many nations, & corruption within the Church. These are the critical issues that he should be attacking, not making social calls & going to soccer games, etc.

Posted by Rob B. on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 5:00 PM (EDT):

@Harry—Yup, pretty much! :)

Posted by Harry on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 4:58 PM (EDT):

“Pope Francis is pissing off all the right people. . .” - Rob B.

Yes, he’s showing that he is the Bishop of Rome, the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church and not some puppet to be manipulated by his hate-filled critics. So much the better if he angers more people from both ends of the extremes. Their vile tirades against him show their naked hypocrisy, even if cloaked in either “social justice” or “tradition.”

Posted by Godless Goddess on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 4:56 PM (EDT):

Guess what, Annie—it is possible for a liberal to dislike homosexuals.

Posted by Rob B. on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 4:50 PM (EDT):

One thing is clear: Pope Francis is pissing off all the right people. . .

Posted by eddie too on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 4:50 PM (EDT):

how in the world did the Holy Spirit choose francis when there are so many, right here, who by their own self-proclamations know the catholic faith far better than francis?

John the Baptist, a great evangelizer, the precursor to the Lord, understood the mission and knew his place: he was the voice and Christ is the Word. Unfit to untie the straps on Christ’s sandals. Yet he was called to proclaim. So are we. We must proclaim with our witness and our words, respectfully, lovingly, caringly and even daringly sometimes, without fear, and without any pride or haughtiness so as to be used by the Holy Spirit who works through us and gets all the glory - unless as spiritual thieves we steal it!

St. Paul, the great New Testament evangelizer, also understood the mission and knew his place: he considered himself the least of all, saved by the grace and the mercy of God. And transformed by the love of Christ for sinners, he knew he needed to heed the call to show and tell the world how good this Good News really is! His whole life was committed to the Person and the mission of Christ, to the point that he exclaimed: “No longer live I, but Christ lives within me” and “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!”

How and when we speak and what we say now and save for later… depends on whether we are getting from the listener and the Holy Spirit a green light or a yellow light or a red light: green means proceed, yellow means prepare to stop or proceed with caution, and red means stop.

I address these and other related topics in my articles, talks, TV and radio shows, blog posts, and in my “12 Tips for an Effective New Evangelization”, in “30 Ways iEvangelize”, and in my “New Evangelization for Dummies.”

We have some great mentors and models: Old Testament models, New Testament models, models throughout Church history, models in all of the recent popes, including Pope Francis, and mentors and models among our peers - men and women who have dedicated their lives to the Person and the mission of Christ, to the evangelization of all peoples (ad gentes) and to the new evangelization of Christian individuals, families, and nations whose faith has grown cold and whose knowledge, understanding, and commitment to Christ and His Church no longer drives their day-to-day deliberations and decisions, brothers and sisters for whom Christ is not the center and source of their happiness and joy and fulfillment. We are not alone in our new evangelization efforts: we have mentors and models whose writings and lives urge us on as a great “cloud of witnesses” with whom we too “keep our eyes fixed on Jesus, the author and perfect of our faith” (Letter to the Hebrews).

United in Christ for a New Evangelization from sea to shining sea,

Martha Fernández-Sardina
Prepare The Way Enterprises
Remember You Are Loved
www.RememberYouAreLoved.com
http://iEvangelize.WordPress.com/
www.Vimeo.com/MarthaFernandeSardina

Posted by Annie on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 4:38 PM (EDT):

Really? Then how would you explain this article from three years ago? Seriously people, stop hitting the pipe before you post.

Pope Francis’ statement about proselytism in a recently released interview by an atheist reporter/editor of an Italian newspaper, might serve as a good reminder of statements made by his predecessors - and by Christ himself, the greatest evangelizer ever, the evangelizer per excellence - all of whom have spoken about and modeled the very necessary and at times delicate balance that must be kept as we carry out the Church’s primary mission: evangelization. In this article that I published in August of 2007, I address the difference between proselytism and authentic evangelization:
http://www.archsa.org/evangelization/documents/EvangelizationYesIitsACatholic’thing’ToDo-AndAMinistry81707.pdf.

Enjoy the reading and visit my blog, my Vimeo Channel, my LOVE and LUMEN FIDEI Facebook Pages, and my new website for additional articles and reflections, TV shows and talks, resources, inspiration, and information on how to effectively carry out a new evangelization in, by, with, and for love of God and neighbor.
Let’s be disciples.
Let’s be new evangelizers.
Let’s be saints!

United in Christ for a New Evangelization from sea to shining sea,

Martha Fernández-Sardina
Prepare The Way Enterprises
Remember You Are Loved
www.RememberYouAreLoved.com
http://iEvangelize.WordPress.com/
www.Vimeo.com/MarthaFernandeSardina

Posted by chris awo on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 4:34 PM (EDT):

All these interviews and controversial talks are all a show. The idea of the show is to keep people distracted and mesmerized.
The real aim of this present papacy, and the Vatican Gay Lobby that backs it, is the liberalization of Catholic teachings on homosexuality. This is their ultimate goal. All who love the Church should stay sober and alert to the tricks and wiles of the enemy. “Be smart as serpents and gentle as doves.”
.
Let the reader exercise wisdom. COME LORD JESUS

Posted by charles harmett on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 4:32 PM (EDT):

to Carolyn
Interesting post. We all know how this papacy has begun, I can only imagine how it is going to end.

Posted by Harry on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 4:29 PM (EDT):

The last of the prophets was John the Baptist. Public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Everything else that came after are private revelations that are “worthy of belief” but are not dogmatic in nature. Even La Salette and Fatima are private revelations that are NOT part of the Deposit of Faith and have never been declared as such. No Pope, and not one Ecumenical Council has ever declared private revelations or so-called “Catholic prophecies” to be part of the Deposit of Faith. Not even apparitions of Christ such as Sacred Heart or Divine Mercy are added to public revelation. No Catholic is compelled to believe in these private revelations.

It is pointless to bring up the issue of prophecies that are not part of Sacred Scripture and present them as Dogma. It is useless to twist the words of mystics into ridiculous conspiracy theories and pit them against the Church’s shepherds, the successors of the Apostles. Those who do this can only foment disquiet and spread confusion among the faithful.

Posted by tg on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 4:24 PM (EDT):

How do you really know what he means, Jimmy? I think the Pope means what he says. He doesn’t strike me as being wishy washy.

Posted by tg on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 4:23 PM (EDT):

I don’t agree with anything Godless Goddess says but I have to agree with this statement - Pope Francis is the Barack Obama of the Catholic Church!
He even gets the same treatment from the media.

Posted by bill russell on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 4:01 PM (EDT):

Rex Mottram (Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisitied) on how to explain that the Pope did not say in his interviews what he did say and did say what he did not say, and all because of a bad translation:
“Yesterday I asked him whether Our Lord had more than one nature. He said: ‘Just as many as you say, Father.’ Then again I asked him: ‘Supposing the Pope looked up and saw a cloud and said ‘It’s going to rain’, would that be bound to happen?’ ‘Oh, yes, Father.’ ‘But supposing it didn’t?’ He thought a moment and said, “I suppose it would be sort of raining spiritually, only we were too sinful to see it.’”

Posted by Carolyn C on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 3:55 PM (EDT):

Meant to say Vatican II DOES NOT promote prophecy.

Posted by Carolyn on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 3:50 PM (EDT):

Masonic document

Freemason Eliph Levi said in 1862: “A day will come when the pope… will declare
excommunications are lifted and all the anathemas are retracted, when all the Christians will be united within the Church, when the Jews and Moslems will be blessed and called back to her . . . she will permit all sects to approach her by degrees and will embrace all mankind in the communion of her love and prayers. Then, Protestants will no longer exist. Against what will they be able to protest? The sovereign pontiff will then be truly king of the religious world, and
he will do whatever he wishes with all the nations of the earth.”8

“In a hundred years time… bishops and priests will think they are marching behind the banner of the keys of Peter, when in fact they will be following our flag… The reforms will have to be brought about in the name of obedience.”6

“I saw the Holy Father surrounded by traitors and in great distress about the Church. He had visions and apparitions in his hour of greatest need. I saw many good, pious Bishops; but they were weak and wavering, their cowardice often got the upper hand. I saw the Black Fellow plotting again, the destroyers attacking the Church of Peter, Mary standing with her mantle over it, and the enemies of God put to flight… Then I saw darkness spreading around and people no longer seeking the true Church. They went to one another saying: ‘All is more beautiful, more natural here, better regulated’: but as yet I have seen no ecclesiastic among them.

“I saw also the relationship between two popes ... I saw how baleful would be the consequences of this false church. I saw it increase in size; heretics of every kind came into the city of Rome. The local clergy grew lukewarm, and I saw a great darkness.

I had another vision of the great tribulation. It seems to me that a concession was demanded from the clergy which could not be granted. I saw many older priests, especially one, who wept bitterly. A few younger ones were also weeping. But others, and the lukewarm among them, readily did what was demanded. It was as if people were splitting into two camps.

I have a question for Mr. Akin: What is the Secret Information Club? If you
Have something to share regarding the faith why must you position it as a secret?

Posted by Godless Goddess on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 2:53 PM (EDT):

Annie, I was being sarcastic. Many people on this site already consider Francis an antipope and bad for the Church. In their opinion, Francis is a liberal and free-thinker, and your two minor examples mean nothing compared to the “big picture.”
.
Three or four bloggers on this site, and the commenters, are either trying to explain what Francis “really said,” or that he should stop doing interviews because they are causing so much trouble.
.
I get the same kind of hostility when some one here decides that I’m not a Catholic, and so I have no right to comment on this blog.

Posted by Harry on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 2:50 PM (EDT):

“I had nothing to do with it. The modernists are the culprits, including Pope Francis I (sic)” - DeCarlo

Even children in kindergarten say “I didn’t do it! They did it, not me!” People looking to convert to the Catholic Church will first read not the 16 documents of Vatican II, but they will look first and foremost at the behavior of the faithful, including what they do in Internet comment boxes. When St. Francis Xavier asked his Japanese friend Anjiro what the best way to preach Catholicism to the Japanese would be, Anjiro answered that the Japanese will first and foremost look at how Xavier behaved in daily life, his conduct, his examples. Had Xavier behaved like DeCarlo here, he would’ve been chased out of Japan immediately and we would not have today the glorious witness of Japanese Saints and Blesseds like Paul Miki and Peter Kibe Kasui.

Posted by Ross H. on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 2:42 PM (EDT):

At long last, the Church has a pope who knows what must be done if the Church is to remain a viable force in our global society. Of course the traditional pharisees, scribes and curial toadies are already in a state of shock, but so what? Christ shocked His world, and His Vicar is expected to do the same.

Posted by Annie on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 2:36 PM (EDT):

GG, curmudgeon traddies have been around since Vatican II. This is nothing new.

Also, Pope Francis is neither liberal nor free-thinking. He is a Jesuit scholar but he reinforces the Catholic catechism which is what the pope is supposed to do.

Pope Francis has already excommunicated a pro gay marriage priest, reinforced the fact that women can’t be ordained, and spoken out against abortion. I’m not getting the Obama comparison.

Posted by Godless Goddess on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 2:32 PM (EDT):

Wow, a whole lot of screaming is going on! Does anyone have a practical idea about what they are going to do about your liberal, free-thinke “antipope?”
.
Francis is the Barak Obama of the Catholic Church—why don’t you form your own Teabagger Party?

Posted by BrianA on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 2:28 PM (EDT):

Read Galatians. Paul was faced with the same issue, Judaizers who followed him and tried to force the Jewish law and circumcision on those who were evangelized, baptized and following the Good News of the Messiah returned. Ask yourself, are you wanting to follow the LAW or follow the Good News of Jesus the Christ. It is still pertinent to ask “Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus?” If we aren’t closer to Him, how can we be closer to each other in the Love that God has for us? Salvation is not be faith alone, or by works alone, it is by Christ sacrifice for us. That love is so overwhelming that we in turn are propelled to love others, including helping them see the love, urging them to stop the sinning, always remembering they have free will, and the Holy Spirit is the one who converts others to God, we simply need to do our part. Now let’s let Pope Francis do his part also.

Posted by Annie on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 2:26 PM (EDT):

JKE, you and other sedevacantists are protestants, plain and simple. LOL that you have the nerve to talk about “Judas popes” when your own bishop up until his expulsion in 2012 was a holocaust denier.

Posted by Harry on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 2:23 PM (EDT):

“The modernists from Vatican II helped to destroy this church and still they maintain that it was a successful council.” - DeCarlo

Replace “Vatican II” in this sentence with “Jerusalem”, “Nicaea I”, “Constantinople I”, “Ephesus”, or “Chalcedon”. All of these councils’ aftermaths were anything but peaceful. When St. Peter abolished circumcision, it was because of the conflict with the Judaizers. When the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was promulgated, the Emperor-supported Arians went berserk. When Ephesus and Chalcedon upheld Mary’s title of Theotokos and Orthodox Christology, the Assyrians, Armenians, Copts, and Ethiopians all broke communion.

And I never see you criticizing these councils. Makes no sense at all to me…

Posted by JKE on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 2:17 PM (EDT):

David M., it’s precisely because we ARE faithful to the Magisterium that we traditional Catholics reject the errors, ambiguities, and novelties of the Judas Council and its Judas Popes, Francis being the fullest realization yet of the Judas Council’s manifold betrayals (e.g., its ecumenism, collegiality, religious freedom, reconception of the priesthood, pathological anthropocentrism, and its abominable Novus Ordo service).

Note: we say that the post-concilliar popes are indeed popes, just as Judas was indeed an apostle. Do you think it’s any accident that the Gospel gives us the horrible examples of not one but two Judases? First, the actual Judas, then the second Judas in the form of Peter and his triple denial. And now as the Passion of Christ is replicated in the Passion of the Church, we again have two Judases: the Judas Council followed by its Judas Popes.

Posted by bill russell on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 2:11 PM (EDT):

When one of the world’s pre-eminent moral philosophers, Germain Grisez, is fed up with these interviews, and will not spin the Pope’s mistakes we are in serious trouble:

“I’m afraid that Pope Francis has failed to consider carefully
enough the likely consequences of letting loose with his thoughts in a
world that will applaud being provided with such help in subverting the
truth it is his job to guard as inviolable and proclaim with fidelity.
For a long time he has been thinking these things. Now he can say them
to the whole world — and he is self-indulgent enough to take advantage
of the opportunity with as little care as he might unburden himself with
friends after a good dinner and plenty of wine.”

Germain Grisez

Posted by Annie on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 2:10 PM (EDT):

There are no hidden meanings to someone who knows the Catholic faith. The purpose of an interview is to answer the questions which are asked. If one finds the answers confusing, well that goes back to reading comprehension.

Posted by Harry on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 2:05 PM (EDT):

“What do you expect from a Jesuit pope? The Jesuits have been rebels since they were founded.” - DeCarlo

What a disgraceful smear against the Society of Jesus. So according to DeCarlo St. Ignatius of Loyola was a rebel… who gave the Church his Spiritual Exercises. St. Francis Xavier, the apostle to India, Indonesia, and Japan was a rebel… who worked very hard and planted the faith in these parts of the world. St. Isaac Jogues and St. Jean de Brebeuf died as rebels against the Church in North America.

I am not impressed by this ignorant snark from DeCarlo. As someone from Indonesia, it was thanks to St. Francis Xavier, a Jesuit, that the Church is planted in the most populous Muslim country in the world. The first native-born Indonesian Catholic bishop was a Jesuit. It was thanks to the Society of Jesus that Catholicism first came to East and Southeast Asia!

Posted by Rene on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 2:03 PM (EDT):

Read the comments above. What do they show? CONFUSION, CONFUSION, CONFUSION. It is clear to me that Pope Francis needs to be more careful when he gives an interview. The purpose of an interview is to make things clear, not to confuse. You cannot expect the average person to understand hidden meanings behind what appear to be obvious statements.

Posted by DeCarlo on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 1:57 PM (EDT):

Harry, Peter realized what he did after the fact. The modernists from Vatican II helped to destroy this church and still they maintain that it was a successful council. My thoughts and beliefs haven’t turned anyone away from the church. Since Vatican II, we have seen full churches, seminaries, convents, Catholic schools become almost empty. I had nothing to do with it. The modernists are the culprits, including Pope Francis I

Posted by bill russell on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 1:57 PM (EDT):

When one of the world’s pre-eminent moral philosophers, Germain Grisez, is fed up with these interviews, and will not spin the Pope’s mistakes, we are in serious trouble:

“I’m afraid that Pope Francis has failed to consider carefully
enough the likely consequences of letting loose with his thoughts in a
world that will applaud being provided with such help in subverting the
truth it is his job to guard as inviolable and proclaim with fidelity.
For a long time he has been thinking these things. Now he can say them
to the whole world — and he is self-indulgent enough to take advantage
of the opportunity with as little care as he might unburden himself with
friends after a good dinner and plenty of wine.”

Germain Grisez

Posted by Annie on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 1:48 PM (EDT):

Harry, totally agreed. If it makes you feel any better, they are not Catholics, they are protestants.

Posted by Harry on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 1:46 PM (EDT):

Catholics such as DeCarlo make me feel ashamed and embarassed. Many things written on this comment box are disgraceful not only to the Holy Father but to whomever else who might see this! How can Catholics profess to be Christ-like when they can’t even respect their appointed shepherd? Who knows how many potential converts to Catholicism have been turned off disgusted by such diatribes courtesy of DeCarlo and others…

Maybe DeCarlo needs to meet the first Pope. His three denials of Christ should’ve been much more scandalous than this interview. His admission of uncircumcised Gentiles into the Church and abolition of the circumcision requirement also caused quite a stir and was a real break from tradition. Why aren’t you criticizing him as well???

Posted by Rodinka on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 1:44 PM (EDT):

Doesn’t anyone read the Catechism? This could have been such a great conversation, but yet again we have all the panicked over stated hubris of the ad hominem argument. We have an extraordinary man in Peter’s chair. He has vision and Love. The conversation in this articles is really bizarre. Everything from Babylonian Cults to the Anathema against any and everyone. Jesuits are trained to think on their feet. Our Holy Father is a Jesuit… Ergo ...

Posted by DeCarlo on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 1:39 PM (EDT):

What do you expect from a Jesuit pope? The Jesuits have been rebels since they were founded.

Posted by Patt on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 1:23 PM (EDT):

DeCarlo—
Thank you. I had forgotten for a moment, that we are not to worry, anything we do does not matter, Heaven’s doors are open to all.
The new flower child Pope reminded me—Also, if one remembers, the hippies used St. Francis as an example of their “philosophy” so wasn’t it apt he took that name???
Too funny!
Eventually all his defense team is going to run out of steam. This has become a full time job for them.

Posted by DeCarlo on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 1:07 PM (EDT):

Patt, since Vatican II, Catholics are not allowed to convert anyone. Since Vatican II, there is no more hell, mortal sin, devil, evil. One modernist theologian said Hell might be empty. Now, we have a pope who has to be interpreted.

Posted by Rodinka on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 12:55 PM (EDT):

Gosh! I wasn’t aware that my Faith was actually a hidden Babylonian Cult! The question was, “did Pope Francis say that Evangelization is hogwash?” He said that Prosylitism is nonsense. The difference between the two is : “Baptism or Death” vs “I have come to draw all things to Myself”. It is Kerygma, or teaching. It is “let him who has ears, hear! ” no he did not say evangelization is nonsense. As they say in French : Point c’est tout!

Posted by Neil on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 12:45 PM (EDT):

I am truly confused by the statements of Pope Francis in the two interviews. It is of utmost importance that the Vatican immediately issue an official translation of his statements in all interviews done so far. Based on that we can proceed.
If he stands by the comments he has reportedly made, we then need Pope Benedict to immediately speak up. Because at that point - if Francis has infact said the things reported - he is at best -way in over his head, and at worst, a clear and present danger to the devout flock of Jesus Christ.
But first - OFFICIAL VATICAN TRANSLATIONS PLEASE !

Posted by Mark on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 12:33 PM (EDT):

kohkis said “Gahhhh, I can’t believe the comments I’m reading. *Claws her own face.* I’m going on a news break again”

lol! Well said. You’re right, these things impel us toward a media fast. Never a bad thing.

Posted by Nosa on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 12:29 PM (EDT):

Under Roman catholism I’m no longer sure if the gospel is still about preaching faith in Jesus as the way to salvation because so far all I see and hear are either a call to pursue individual religions with sincerity or a call to the feet of Semiramis whom they disguise as Mary the mother of Jesus and have tactically venerated/enthroned her as a figure of worship. A lot of catholics will say they don’t worship jesus to me that is just saying twelve is different from a dozen. They made her without sin,they made her a co-redeemer with Jesus, they made said she ascended to Heaven bodily just like Jesus, they made her the burden bearer and a mediator for the church,they pray to her and dedicate temples to her.Finally, Semiramis whom Roman Catholism disguised as Mary has been enthroned..The Original father(Nimrod), Son(Tammuz) and Mother(Semiramis) of the Ancient mystery religion of Babylon has been set up..

Posted by David Brady on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 12:18 PM (EDT):

Surely we have had enough ambiguity what with the documents of Vatican II without Pope Francis causing more whenever he speaks!

Posted by Nosa on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 12:03 PM (EDT):

Annie, when you realise the role of money in world hegemony then you will realised why all the Roman catholic church cares about is Power(control) and Wealth. Do you know that as of today the RCC is the Richest individual organisation in the world?

The centralisation of finance is critical to world hegemony(domination). You may be among those who actually thinks that the world is been controlled by military might. I would blame you because at first sight, militant national power appears to be the major force in history; but if there is a power which can bring nations into military conflict, it is a superior power. Is there such a power, and where, if anywhere, is it located?

There is a relationship between Finance, Centralization, and World Hegemony. Until the outbreak of the First World War, money appeared to be a mere mechanism. But the arrangements made to finance the war reveal that the money system was in fact the vehicle of a POLICY, and that that policy was the CENTRALIZATION of power leading progressively to World Government. Prior to the outbreak of war, Great Britain was the CENTRE (but not the BEING) of world financial control; with the war, financial control was transferred to New York and from there used to dismantle the British Empire which, by reason of British traditions and the Anglo-Saxon character, had been the great barrier to World Dominion by those operating through the world financial system. The fall of the British Empire was a FINANCIAL accomplishment, not a military one. But the terms of ‘peace’ imposed on ‘victorious’ Britain are those which might have been expected following military DEFEAT.

But the Power which emerged into the open in this century had its birth long before that. It was incubated (but not conceived) in the Secret Societies of Europe, appeared briefly in the French Revolution, and spread to Britain in the form of Fabianism, and to America in the form of various Socialist societies. Following the first phase of the war, it openly took over Russia, and since has visibly spread as International Communism until it has taken over the greater part of the globe. Its only recently that americans are beginning to see that the very core of their nationhood which is Liberty of citizens is almost gone..before their very eyes america sovereignty has been slaughtered for a bigger goal(world government) and the so called Socialism is actually no difference from Communism or fabianism

@Xavier,sometimes people that holds a view like mine are perceived as a conservative or even fanatics.
Men has promoted a notion of conservative or liberal view towards God’s word yet the Gospel is clear on salvation matters. Jesus Christ said ” I am the way, the truth and the Life. No man comes to the father except by me- Jesus Christ. He said there’s no other name given to men under heaven by which men must be save except the name Jesus and whosover calls on him(with faith) shall be save”.
The goodliness of a Man by virtue of Morality is NOT a prerequisite for Salvation because righteousness is not a good Act but a nature impacted into our recreated Human Spirit when we got Born Again through faith in Christ Jesus. Does that means that born-again believers shouldn’t be goodly? Not at all. Infact being goodly is a by-product of this nature of righteousness in a child of God. For decades the Roman Catholic church through different fronts has told the world that faith in Jesus is not needed for Salvation. Infact they have endorse all religion and promoted pluralism. I’m not advocating religion here but faith in Jesus Christ.

A lot of people actually believes that the pope is the official representation of Christ on Earth. Although this is bogus because the pope-succession has no biblical basics. Nevertheless the Roman Catholic catechism already plays down the importance and role of the bible by stating that the Roman Catholic church doesn’t derived all its revealed truth from the bible but also from tradition and both must be held with equal reverence. She knows that a majority of her dogmas and beliefs are pure paganism hence she creates a way of justifying her paganism by authenticating “tradition” and equating it with the Bible. It will be expedient to know that the so called “tradition” is the same erroneous unbiblical belief and decrees of past popes and council meetings.

Read the following carefully and tell me if the popes truly represents Jesus or his interests because all of these made nonsense of the death of Jesus. And above all you will realised the actual intent of the Roman Catholic church which is truly according to what Pope francis reaffirmed in his interview.

On the 24th of May 2013, the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church Pope Francis made his comments at the morning Mass at his residence while reaching out to the Atheist community and people of other religions he said- GOOD DEEDS and Not BELIEF or FAITH In Christ is Required For Salvation. It is important to note that he’s not the first pope that has declared this Heresy.

“I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic.” - Mother Teresa

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 30, 2005 (Zenit.org). — Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith, says Benedict XVI. The(former) Pope made this affirmation at the general audience, commenting on a meditation written by St. Augustine (354-430)

Even the official Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church teaches the same heresy, that is, that a person can be save some OTHER WAY besides faith in Christ if they’re sincere . . .

1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.“62 Every man who is IGNORANT of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
{Source: Catechism of the Catholic. Emp added}

These is an integral part of New Age teachings, that there are many paths to God and all of these paths are correct. Buddhism, the Bahá’í faith and New Agers like Oprah Winfrey all teaches that there are many paths to the light and sincerity is all that really matters. This is exactly the message of the United nations through her inter-religious organisation( United Religion Initiative)..from this and my previous post its no doubt that the world is gradually heading back to “Babylon”.

Posted by John M. on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 11:41 AM (EDT):

“We have a 1960, Flower child, hippy, “we are the world” Pope. Will it win converts? Not likely. Sure folks will come in see the pope’s ideals lack substance, are weak and watered down—then head for the door. SAD!!
He needs to quit with the interviews and speak ex cathedral, or write and encyclical so we can pin him down, and see his wavering heretic thoughts come to life, the Holy Spirit is going to be busy.”

We have a way of knowing pretty sure what Pope Francis’ character is. Jesus stated to judge them by their fruits. Can anyone state what the fruits of Pope Francis’ tenure as archibishop in Argentina were? Well, only 10% of Catholics go to Mass, and look at their government policies. What makes naive people think that his approach will be successful on the world stage if he were so utterly incompetent in Argentina?

Also, what is the sensus fidelium about Pope Francis’ interviews and statements? Well, judging by the comments and the feelings of the orthodox faithful, it is that something is dreadfully wrong with this Pope and his mushy, vague statements about the faith.

Posted by Jay on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 11:27 AM (EDT):

Man this is sad, everytime Holy Father speaks.

I can bet the farm and still win that Mr. Akin is going to do a “7/8/9 Reasons why not to panic, cause Pope Francis didn’t reeeeally say that”

Mr. Akin with all do respect, someone needs to tell Pope Francis this does not help the Faith or the Faithful, too many people are being confused and you shouldn’t have to constantly come out week after week with an article trying to explain what “Holy Father really meant” Okay so maybe Pope Francis isn’t saying something bad (like the naysayers drone on about) and the media is twisting his words, but at some point you have to realize that the way HH is doing things is not good for us and there has to be a change.

I love the Catholic Church and I love Holy Father Papa Francesco, but I have to be honest and call it like I see it.

Posted by florian siena on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 11:17 AM (EDT):

Louis Melahn: May I ask where did you find the article in Italian: I just went to an Italian website but couldn’t find it…thanks.

Posted by Xavier Abraham on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 11:15 AM (EDT):

“I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic.” - Mother Teresa.

So was Mother, a “relativist” ? Appreciating and welcoming the good of others, atheists included, is Catholic, not relativism.

For the full quote - http://www.ewtn.com/motherteresa/words.htm

“There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God. I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic. We believe our work should be our example to people. We have among us 475 souls - 30 families are Catholics and the rest are all Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs—all different religions. But they all come to our prayers.”

Posted by Patt on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 11:15 AM (EDT):

We have a 1960, Flower child, hippy, “we are the world” Pope. Will it win converts? Not likely. Sure folks will come in see the pope’s ideals lack substance, are weak and watered down—then head for the door. SAD!!
He needs to quit with the interviews and speak ex cathedral, or write and encyclical so we can pin him down, and see his wavering heretic thoughts come to life, the Holy Spirit is going to be busy.

I have read the entire interview in Italian a couple of times now, and there is not a hint of Liberation Theology or Modernism in the Pope’s answers. It is perfectly orthodox doctrine.

Jimmy has done a good job of dissecting the issues regarding proselytism, but I think there is a detail that might help: the word “proselytism” in Italian has a much more negative connotation than it does in English. “Proselytism” means imposing the faith on others. Evangelization, on the other hand, mean announcing the Good News. One can hardly fault Pope Francis for not promoting evangelization; in fact, it was the topic of the entire World Youth Day held this summer.

Posted by Annie on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 10:55 AM (EDT):

“The only thing the Roman Catholic church truly cares about is Power and wealth.”
.
Perhaps the most laughable thing I’ve ever read on this site…

Posted by charles harmett on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 10:53 AM (EDT):

to James
I trust the teachings of the church and I trust the teachers of the church who adhere to the teachings of the church. I do not trust teachers of the church who waiver or appear to waiver in their adherence to the teachings of the church.

Posted by Nosa on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 10:48 AM (EDT):

“Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us.”

We are still debating on this because a lot of us actually thinks the Roman Catholic church is a Christian Organisation..No! Not at all. The Roman Universal(catholic) Church is an Hybrid religion. The aim is not to actually convert people but to unite the religions and beliefs of people. Roman Catholism is an hybrid religion. a result of the blending of the Ancient Mystery religion of Babylon, the Persia,Grecian and Roman mystic religions that grew out of her and the Abrahamic religions. The goal is to create a one world universal religion. A lot of people are already carried away by this deception because they could see elements of the truth in some of the words of the popes. The most effective form of deception is an Half truth cause its more dangerous than an out-right lie..If you have been following the words of the popes they operate under the same rule. This helps to compound the deception. The targeted audience is what determines what the pope says. This is one major reason why the words of the popes are never consistent, what he says here contradicts what he says there because they say what their targeted audience needed to here and this has endeared the popes to faithfuls and clerics of nearly all religion. They are not out to preach christ to you as a criteria for salvation or covert(proselytise), Never! they come to you with “sweet words” just to lure you to the feet of the pope. The only thing the Roman Catholic church truly cares about is Power and wealth( world Hegemony).the roman catholic Church is far beyond a church. It is an empire. The true survivor and continuation of the Ancient Roman Empire…

“Speaking of the time, about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was crumbling to pieces:] “No, the [Catholic] Church will not descend into the tomb. It will survive the Empire . . . At length a second empire will arise, and of this empire the Pope will be the master—more then this, he will be the master of Europe. He will dictate his orders to kings who will obey them”—Andrea Lagarde, The Latin Church in the Middle Ages, 1915, p. vi.

The above excerpt explains the transition of pagan rome to holy roman empire. And this transition process is still on..The Roman Empire is the Last empire that will rule this world before the second coming of Jesus. Even the Anglo-America empire we know is a continuation of the Roman Empire. When we realised that,
What is today known as Britain emerged from the Anglo Saxon which is one of the ten resultant Kingdoms that emerged after the fall of Pagan Rome in 476AD and it is one of the Constituent Seven Kingdoms that merged to form the Holy Roman Empire whose official religion became Roman Catholism by the declaration of Emperor constantine. by this, it is self evident that the anglo-saxon is actually a Roman Catholic kingdom.
When the American revolution began it wasn’t a war between two nations rather it was a war between Brits and Brits. It was a war between two idealism on human right and Liberty. The Thirteen colonies that was later to be known as the United States of America then at war with Great-Britain were brits.
In 1773 a rugged frontier brits became increasingly tired of being ruled by a distant elite. A group of Brits calling themselves Patriots were especially unhappy for a couple of reasons which includes being heavily taxed by a parliament in which they were unrepresented. These patriots mobilised the thirteen colonies and it led to a revolt and gradually disintegrated in war. They were later helped by the French and this victory led to the birth of a new Nation known as the United State of America.

The reason that animated the revolt of the thirteen colonies that fought for independence and their resolutions shows the American Revolution was motivated, not by a rejection but a reaffirmation – indeed, an intensification – of British national identity.

The men who raised that standard believed that they were fighting for their freedoms as Britons – freedoms which had been trampled by a Hanoverian king and his hirelings. When they called themselves Patriots – a word that had been common currency among Whigs on both sides of the Atlantic long before anyone dreamed of a separation – they meant that they were British patriots, cherishing the peculiar liberties that had come down to them since Magna Carta: jury trials, free contract, property rights, habeas corpus, parliamentary representation, liberty of conscience and the common law.
It was these ideals that were set to paper in a small secular miracle at Philadelphia’s old courthouse. As the Virginia-born Lady Astor later put it, the war was fought “by British Americans against a German King for British ideals.”
The American colonists knew they were committing treason and faced death if their war was lost. Yet, fight on they did, and in the process, they went from being British citizens subject to a king to a nation who elected their government and the result was the birth of a Nation- The United States of America..

Today a lot of americans and the people of the world are living in the past. The American dream is gone and the Anglo-america empire has crumbled. The emerging new empire will not be built on any individual country, present or past empire. Rather it will be a global multi-power bloc. The bible described this as a ten Kingdoms(region) global confederation(Rev 17:8-14). Which is in line with the proposal of the Club of Rome. Of all names in the world doesn’t it baffles you that the think-tank organisation of the UN is named “the CLUB OF ROME”? an elite organisation of world great minds ordained as a pathfinder for the world..
The Roman Empire is still very much ruling… Along the path of history, there has been different empires and big states but there has never been actually a global government. The purpose of the tower of Babylon is to create a global government that will unite the entire population of the then world of all who rejects the God of heaven that destroys the earth with flood. For over thousands of years, that dream has never been fulfil but right now we seems to be very close to that fulfilment. The UN is not a global government since it is limited to mainly an advisory role. The UN is part of the culminating process that began as the league of nations using guided war to push the world towards a Global govt..Current history, which looks episodic, is in fact the culminating stages of a very long-term policy moving internationally, but visible only in the long perspective of time..GOD BLESS US ALL

Posted by Annie on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 10:46 AM (EDT):

kohkis, apparently reading comprehension is not a strong attribute of many people.

Posted by Flores on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 10:44 AM (EDT):

Oct. 2nd…I really believe that Pope Francis is always going to focus on mercy, love, forgiveness…bringing the lost sheep home, caring for them and then leading them to the Lord and His love…but someone said that Pope Francis claimed that the two worst evils of our time are young people without a job and the loneliness of the elderly…I’m not sure if this is true but being without a job is not evil; loneliness is not evil…they are difficult situations and we should help those suffering from joblessness or loneliness…but real, deep and penetrating, pervasive evil is the ongoing mass slaughter of innocent human babies in the wombs of their mothers…by the millions!!! Is that not evil??? If Pope Francis said that, maybe…well, I honestly don’t understand but I will try to continue to trust him because his heart is truly the heart of a Shepherd.

Posted by kohkis on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 10:43 AM (EDT):

Gahhhh, I can’t believe the comments I’m reading. *Claws her own face.* I’m going on a news break again, this is ridiculous. After all the wise and wonderful things Francis has said about the good of evangelization, do you guys *really* think that he did a 180 here and told us not to spread the gospel? Really? It couldn’t be that he used the word “proselytism” according to one of its other valid definitions? No? ... Charity. It’s a virtue. Means not jumping to the worst possible conclusion when you don’t have to (and it’s not even reasonable to).

Posted by Annie on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 10:29 AM (EDT):

Rob and DeCarlo, no offense at my dig at fisheaters. While I agree that not everyone there is sede, there is definitely an air of hubris among most of the members. Most of the threads about the pope are very disparaging and downright disrespectful. People are free to disagree with the Pope but he is still the holy father and thus should be treated accordingly.

Posted by James on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 10:16 AM (EDT):

“That is absolute arrogance.”

Says the man in the combox about the Successor of Peter.

Posted by DeCarlo on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 9:36 AM (EDT):

Most of “fisheaters” are not sedevacantists. They are traditional Catholics, like myself, who saw Vatican II as a disaster.

Posted by Rob B. on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 9:22 AM (EDT):

@FJ—Pray tell, what “real theologians” have taken the Holy Father to task? All I see is a bunch of posters whose theological credentials are questionable at best. . .
.
@“Brother” Dimond—Hey, Brother Martin of Wittenberg! Glad to see you’ve come out of hiding!

Posted by Rob B. on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 9:18 AM (EDT):

@Annie—Thank you for posting on the issue of a “Catholic God.” Anyone one with half a brain and no agenda could see what the Holy Father meant when he said this.
.
As for your dig at Fisheaters, I assure that not everyone who posts there is a sede. . . :)

Posted by Annie on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 8:52 AM (EDT):

Please, can the sedevacantist grumpy Muppets please go back to fisheaters? This is the National Catholic Register, after all.

Posted by Annie on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 8:48 AM (EDT):

Yes people, God is not Catholic. To say that God is Catholic leaves open the possibility for a Buddhist god, a Muslim god, and whatever other kind of god you can think of. There is ONE God, and one God only! His Church is one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic. Protestantism is an earthly, man-made thing. Those who do not know about the Catholic Church will be made aware at the hour of their death. God didn’t come up with “Catholic,” that was a term created by man to describe God’s Church.

Posted by E Neubauer on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 8:43 AM (EDT):

Dear Jimmy,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I just want to make the point that “our” need for your interpretation on what Pope Francis is saying or not saying, at some level, is a sad state of affairs. I have so appreciated Pope Francis’ engagement with the world around him - allowing the faithful to hear and see a great example of Gospel living. What is disturbing from all sectors of Catholic culture is the desire by so many to make Pope Francis say what they want him to say. The Catholic faithful so want Pope Francis to be in “their” box rather than approaching what the Pope says with a open and humble heart.

We should not be so worried about how the world will interpret Pope Francis. We should listen to our Pope, listen carefully and then try hard to imitate such a man.

Peace

Posted by David M. on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 8:29 AM (EDT):

Too many chicken little Catholics here are not willing to take a deep breath and stay faithful to the Magisterium of our Holy Church. As a convert (2010) I know that what drew me and keeps me Catholic is the papacy. The papacy, not the pope. (although I love this pope and think he is being thrown under the bus by “traditional” Catholics) There have been bad popes who said odd things, or things which were merely opinion. Benedict XVI would even point out when he was giving opinion. Are you chicken littles so uninformed in your Catholic faith that you don’t know the difference between different kinds of magisterial statements and teaching?

Here are the rules:
1. Keep on doing the work of the church as taught by her Magisterium.
2. Give him the benefit of the doubt until it is no longer possible…
3. If you think he has said some error, and can no longer give the benefit of the doubt, and can not find ANY possible reading of his words which conforms to Magisterial teaching, then WORST CASE you have a pope giving his personal opinion, and Holy Church is still rock solid, so stop slinging your venom online, shut the hell up, and get back to the work of the Church.

God bless our pope, and God bless his Church.

Posted by MarieJean on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 8:23 AM (EDT):

“God is not Catholic?” Those who take offense at Pope Francis’s remark surely don’t mean to imply that “God IS Catholic”! If you are, don’t you think this is very insulting to all the other Christian faiths and to those who faithfully live a good Christian life and do good Christian deeds? I would also go so far as to say it is insulting to ALL faiths - Christian and non-Christian.

To me, the Spirit of God is moving through Pope Francis who preaches the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I would take Pope Francis at his word. No need to explain away what he is saying. Open your hearts. When Jesus himself preached the Good News, he riled up a lot of the Pharisees. They didn’t want to hear the Good News of God’s love and forgiveness and mercy.

Posted by Tito Tabones on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 8:21 AM (EDT):

Great article, Jimmy! And thanks. Like our Blessed Lord Himself, whose Vicar he is on earth, our good and humble pope, Francis has been misinterpreted, misunderstood, reviled and scorned by those who have no idea about what he is talking about. I won’t be surprised if somebody calls him next the very Devil himself, as our Lord was in his time. Peace!

Posted by FJ on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 8:02 AM (EDT):

I’m a faithful son of the Church, but I will no longer defend the Pope. It is his role to unify the Church, not cause confusion. The Pope is not infallible in everything he says and does! Why do you and so many Catholic bloggers take it to be your responsibility to tell us what Pope Francis really meant, or how he is being misrepresented by his interviewer, or… Let him clarify his own confusing interviews. When real theologians question his statements, it time for him to start acting like a Pope!

Posted by JohnnyCuredents on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 7:43 AM (EDT):

Christy is right. I have a novel proposition: That all Catholics, Jimmy and other Catholic journalists as well, no longer talk about Pope Francis’ words. Let them explain themselves. Let us refrain from both attack and defense. If his plan for a modern dialogue is valid, then his words will prevail against the criticisms of both Christians and non-Christians outside the Church (see statement of Southern Baptist leader yesterday criticizing Francis). The plain truth is that no one is buying the apologists’ explanations any way; there are far too many of them and they insult the intelligence of readers by begging (but not answering really) the question of just why THIS pope is more confusing than all others.

Posted by Christy on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 6:50 AM (EDT):

There is a problem when we Catholics keep having to explain that the Pope doesn’t mean what he says he does. Let him explain himself. The Truth isn’t dependent upon what he says, the Truth is already there.

Posted by confusdd on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 4:12 AM (EDT):

What is the correct interpretation of how as fully faithful Catholics, we are to see the Pope? St. Catherine of Siena called him Sweet Christ on Earth. Yet when we look at Church history we learn about bad and immoral Popes and then we are told they were only infallible when speaking ex cathedra. I am finding it hard to reconcile these options. I am a child of Benedict XVI and had great love for the life and writings of his predecessor by extension. I think I have erred towards St. Catherine’s take on the Papacy, but now I’m ashamed to say I am filled with foreboding. If the Pope starts talking like a modernist or a liberation theologian, or even refuting traditional teaching, what are we to do? Is this a moral impossibility? I would like to know the teaching. The Holy Spirit permitted the Borgias to continue in their scandalous ways, but we always hear that they never taught against Tradition. Does that only refer to their ex cathedra statements, or is it conceivable that a Pope in an interview or in ecclesial decisions could say something that requires of the faithful a change on the level of doctrine? Forgive me, if the Holy Spirit won’t permit it.

Posted by Caroline on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 3:43 AM (EDT):

Amen Lindsay. Good one :)

Posted by JKE on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 2:43 AM (EDT):

The NeoCatholic hermeneutic of desperation displayed here is truly a marvel to behold. How much longer, Jimmy, will you bury your head in the sand? This is a Judas Pope spawned by a Judas Council. It’s no accident that the Gospel gives us two Judases: the first in Judas himself, and the second Judas when Peter denied Christ.

Those who have any objections to this message, take heart: I’m just following my conscience.

Posted by Lindsay on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 2:36 AM (EDT):

When Jesus preached, the Jews who were too focussed on juridical religious law attacked him and spoke negatively about him. Pope Francis is preaching and engaged in active evangelisation without proselytizing and Catholics and being less than charitable towards him. Think carefully about how your criticisms of him sound similar to those focused too much on the law and less on the evangelical nature of the Church to go out and meet people where they are and share the Good News.

Some have accused Pope Francis of not knowing scripture and Church teaching! Read his sermon from WYD when he preached so eloquently from scripture and from the Catechism in his 90 minute press conference (some in their comments have said he never refers to these texts).

We need to support our Pope and stop pretending we are more Catholic than the Church. May our words and actions be influenced by charity over uniformed criticism. God Bless :)

Posted by Maurizio on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 2:29 AM (EDT):

I am Italian and I thank the many people that on blogs ‘explain’ what the Pope really meant but ... I’m distressed. If the Pope meant what you say then WHY doesn’t he speak clearly? 80 percent of Italians have today accepted that proselytism is total nonsense and this is what is clearly written on ‘La Repubblica’ and this is what is going around today in talk shows, radio, everywhere here in Italy. I even heard someone say in a bar that he always had some doubts about his not attending Mass on Sundays but now his conscience is clear because the Pope said listen to your conscience and you’ll be saved and my conscience tells me that the Mass with all its childish music is not for me because I feel angry when I attend!

Posted by Caroline on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 2:20 AM (EDT):

If you know your faith property you’ll know that the pope isn’t actually saying anything contrary to what the church or Jesus teaches people. Get educated.

I am going to borrow a word from the Muslisms here. When you so-called Orthodox Catholics speak ill of the Holy Father - the one who occupies the chair of Peter - you undermine the Church and the Holy Spirit. You are INFIDELS. You sound just as bad as those infidels over at the National Katholic Reporter when they slammed Pope Benedict. You are NOT Orthodox or you would be loyal to the Holy Father and ALWAYS give him the benefit of the doubt when being quoted by the press. And GG, take your foul mouth and go somewhere else. If that what you call intellectual discourse, then you have nothing to offer. Come back when you grow up.

Posted by GG on Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 12:12 AM (EDT):

“God is not Catholic?”—A question that can only be asked by a Catholic.

“The Pope is a “Humanist”? What does that even mean?

“Humanism is a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Ergo: The Pope is a member of a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism).”

In other words, Pope Francis is stating that, while we live, the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally individual thought and evidence is more important here and now than concern of our concern for our own salvation.

SO MANY Catholics, as demonstrated on this site, are concerned for their own beliefs of salvation that they despise unbelievers in general. They complain that unbelievers are “not open” to the teachings of the Catholic Church, and, despite access to the internet, can’t understand how to look up “humanist” or other words they don’t know.
/
What the hell is your problem about using the internet to Google an unfamiliar term? Just type the term and thousands of dictionary sites will be found for you. Is thinking on your own so damned difficult?

Your demand that every term from comment that opposes your opinion be defined by the person who wrote it is a shallow excuse to stay in your blissful ignorance.

Even if you’ve been home schooled, if you want to qualify for a respectable college, how can you be so damned stupid as to not look up information?

Anyone involved in research of any subject is pi$$ed off by your bullshIt responses.

Posted by Allan Wafasky on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 11:55 PM (EDT):

Has there ever been a pope who required so much explanation to make his statements sound like the utterances of sober man?

Posted by sharing angst on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 11:54 PM (EDT):

Isn’t our new pope a Jesuit? Didn’t the Society of Jesus do a complete 180 degree turn from classical Jesuitism to Arrupism, spearheading an antipapal, anti-Roman and anticapitalist movement among Catholic bishops, clergy, nuns, and laypeople?
“In a single generation, the Society of Jesus has been swamped by a new and totally secular purpose…waging a war to the death. True, the targets in this war include the pope and papacy; and one aim is the dismantling of the hierarchic Church and its teachings as they have been known for sixteen centuries,” Malachi Martin, The Jesuits, The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church.

Posted by Baseballmom on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 11:53 PM (EDT):

One thing is clear. This pope is causing great confusion, or at least allowing it to happen with his interviews. I will fast and pray for him, but no longer will read his words. As a Catholic in the trenches for 42 of my 57 years I have had enough of his most painful interviews. Reading his words has become, for me, a near occasion of sin. Lord have mercy, Christ have Mercy, Lord have mercy.

Posted by MarieJean on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 11:44 PM (EDT):

I cannot believe that such terrible statements about our Pope are allowed to stay on this site. How can one consider himself a faithful Catholic by making such a statement ” heretical non-Catholic antipope?”

Posted by MarieJean on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 11:41 PM (EDT):

I see Christ in the actions of Pope Francis.

Posted by Bro. Peter Dimond on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 11:41 PM (EDT):

When will you realize that Francis is not a pope, but a heretical non-Catholic antipope? See www.vaticancatholic.com for the truth about the Catholic faith and the false Vatican II sect. It’s necessary for salvation to see this information.

Posted by Michael on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 11:38 PM (EDT):

It is no disloyalty to leave Francis, seeing as he has left the Catholic Faith some time ago. The foundation of the Papacy is the Faith; he does not have it, so he has not the Foundation.

Posted by StCeciliasGirl on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 11:38 PM (EDT):

You can’t be serious. Proselytizing versus evangelizing? Really?

Ask yourself if JESUS sent ANYONE into the world to “listen to needs, desires and disappointments, despair, hope.” No He did not. Not even close: Jesus sent the apostles specifically to preach the Gospel.

And Jesus=God too, by the way. That’s sort of THE GOSPEL that Bergoglio denied last night.

It all boils down to that: you either believe that Jesus is God who came to earth physically to save many, or you don’t.

Posted by Christine Niles on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 11:10 PM (EDT):

Pope Honorius wrote a series of letters (not ex cathedra) promoting monothelitism—a heresy. He was later condemned as a heretic at the Council of Constantinople. This condemnation was affirmed by Pope Leo I. The Catholic Encyclopedia states, “It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius.”

It does us well to remember that not every remark of the Pontiff—whoever he may be—is to be considered infallible or even correct—especially where those remarks are not in keeping with Church teaching or Tradition. The Church is much larger than this or that pontificate; it stretches far beyond the pastoral style of this or that pope. Defend the Papacy—yes. Defend every single off-the-cuff remark of the Holy Father, no matter how unsound? No.

Posted by Carolyn C on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 11:02 PM (EDT):

Are you kidding me? Once again the media is scrambling again to explain Francis’ words! “Prosteylizing is solemn nonsense?” Please, I beg you not to insult my intelligence and say that’s not what The Bishop of Rome said.
This is a pattern. He says one thing one day—“don’t focus on abortion or gays,” but the very next day, he discusses abortion. St. Patrick converted so many to the faith by proselytizing. Why would the Vicar of Christ say that proselytizing is nonsense. The co-founder of the Jesuits, St. Francis Xavier dedicated his life to spreading the Gospel and proselytizing - converting others to the faith.
Today is St. Theresa of Liseuax’s Feast Day. Francis says he has a special relationship with St. Theresa, who is the patron saint of missionaries. How sad she must be today to know the Vicar of Christ said we should not seek to convert people to the faith.
And regarding the comment that Francis said: “He’s worse than we thought” seems unkind. I would expect a man of the cloth to say we need to pray for the unbelievers instead of making an off the cuff comment. Okay, now let the explaining and the scrambling of the perfected transcripts begin!

Posted by MarieJean on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 10:47 PM (EDT):

“I believe in God, not in a Catholic God. There is no Catholic God; there is God, and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my being.”

I like Pope Francis’s statements here. He proclaims who God is for us without a “monopoly” mentality. I think he will make great ecumenical strides. To even sit down with an atheist in a cordial, friendly open manner seems very Christ like to me. I have heard so many fallen away Catholics speak about possibly returning to the church and so many non-Catholics who have admiration for Pope Francis’s genuine humility and holiness.

Posted by Don on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 9:42 PM (EDT):

We have to remember that Pope Francis IS the Vicor of Christ. To leave him is to leave Christ.

Posted by bill russell on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 9:42 PM (EDT):

Sorry, you can spin this all you want but the spinning is getting out of control. This pope should not give interviews. And undisciplined mind and undefined terms only beg exploitation by the media. The pope actually says this:

“Jesuits were and still are the leavening - not the only one but perhaps the most effective - of Catholicism: culture, teaching, missionary work, loyalty to the Pope.”

Yikes! What planet is this pope on? Jesuits? Effective? Loyal ? I fear that this papacy is becoming an unmitigated disaster.

Posted by Mr. Two Cents on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 9:41 PM (EDT):

Look, the mission of the Church is to bring everyone into the fold. It is to save souls. The doctrines, the dogmas, the liturgy and all of the theology highlighted by Benedict XVI is all beautiful and it is all truth. But, even though he never intended to be perceived in this way, Benedict helped to make us Catholics look like we were blocking the doorway with arms tightly crossed. If you don’t invite them in, they won’t come in.

What I see Pope Francis doing, by clever contrast, is stepping out of the way of the door. And when they come inside, he’ll slam it shut and lock it.

You see, Pope Francis recognizes that today’s people have become like defiant children. They don’t want to be told anything. They perceive it as being “bossed around.” And of course, they know everything. He is simply finding a new way to say all the things Pope Emeritus Benedict held dear. He is talking to a child in a way the child will understand.

Posted by Lynda on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 9:31 PM (EDT):

I can agree with your interpretation but wonder why its necessary? Why is the Pope talking in this way and giving ammunition (however wrongly interpreted and out of context)to those who wish Catholicism would radically wrap itself around the world? Words like ‘be open to the modern world’ has been basically change to the world and haven’t we felt it. Who are the ‘heads of the Church’ accused of narcissism? It reads as to be his predecessors. Is this Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict…the media think so.

More importantly why are we getting so many messages about sharp tongues and gossip…when we have to continually read and reread the Pope’s words to try and understand what they charitably mean.

I think the hardest place to be Catholic is in the Church. When Pope Benedict was there you felt he was in the right place…now we are peddling backwards.

I am concerned about expressing mystical insights/lights…that is not for us to hear…but between him and God. Why mention it?

Posted by Don on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 9:30 PM (EDT):

The Catholic Church has sailed through very stormy sea for the last 2000 years. I will never leave her! Popes are not infallible unless speaking ex cathedra (and I’m pretty sure an interview with an atheist is not ex cathedra). The ship of the Catholic Church sails on in spite of bad popes, bishops and laypeople. We must NEVER leave her! The gates of hell will war against her until Christ returns but Hell will never prevail against against her. Those who are tempted to leave, while knowing she is necessary, need to remember the Church’s teaching…“there is no salvation outside of the Church”.

Posted by Matt on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 9:27 PM (EDT):

The Pope is a “Humanist”? What does that even mean? Think about you would say to the man if you actually encountered him.

Posted by John654 on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 9:27 PM (EDT):

I pray they where joking about proselytization, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he was serious. The Bishop of Rome is doing great damage to the faithful with these interviews in my opinion. He doesn’t like being called Pope and as the days of him being in office progress I feel more and more comfortable not calling him Pope.

God is not Catholic?
God is not Universal?

What the hell?

Posted by Godless Goddess on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 9:04 PM (EDT):

It occurred to me as I was on another blog on this site, and it bears repeating:

Pope Francis is the Barack Obama of the Catholic Church!

Posted by Godless Goddess on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 8:49 PM (EDT):

Bill Melnyk—
.
It’s beginning to look like you and other like-minded people will have to split from the Catholic Church to preserve THE TRUTH, because Pope Francis (and Vatican II) are corrupting traditional Catholicism..
.
It’s an odd position for you—if you split from the Church, your sect will, by current Catholic definition, be Protestant. But if you hold that the Church of Vatican II and Pope Francis is corrupt, then your sect will be the True Catholic Church.
/
I’ll enjoy watching this show.

Posted by Bill Melnyk on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 8:36 PM (EDT):

Proselytization is not “strong arming” anyone. It is giving one the “truth” needed to be saved. By definition:

“To induce someone to convert to one’s own religious faith.”

No, the Pope is definitely wrong and to cover for him or defend him is wrong also. In all his recent interviews, Pope Francis has been very vague and ambiguous almost to the point of being deliberate. He is more of a Humanist than a Catholic.

He and all Catholics must tell everyone that you must be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved. Without the sacraments one cannot achieve a state of “sanctifying grace”; the grace that is needed at death to be saved. This is the “truth” taught by the Perrenial Magesterium of the Catholic Church.

Posted by Don on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 8:30 PM (EDT):

TMC…the Atheist comment didn’t confuse me, because I realized that we are ALL redeemed (but not all are saved) and he never said atheists will be forgiven by following their consciences. He said God will forgive those who come to Him with a contrite heart. BUT, most Catholics don’t understand the difference between redemption and salvation in Catholic theology, and became VERY confused.

Posted by TMC on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 8:15 PM (EDT):

How many more times will the spin doctors have to be rushed out to cover for PF?

Unless PF is a genuine idiot or has been living in a cave for the past 20 or so years, he knows the nature and bent of those to whom he is granting these interviews, which of his words will be zeroed in on, how those words will be reported, and the effect they will have. He knows what he’s doing. He knows who will love him for what is saying and who feel despair and even anger.

I’m already tired of hearing, “that’s not what he meant”; “you must read between the lines”; “it would be absurd to believe he meant it as it’s being spun”.

If it walks like a duck…

Very telling in terms of his words, his intended effect, and the direction in which he seems to honestly believe he will be able to take the Church without causing schism unlike anything seen in centuries, was the encounter I had with a Jesuit recently. I explained that I was troubled by PF’s recent remarks. As a traditional Catholic who has devoted years and much effort to pro-life and pro-family causes, his words—and when the questions came up, he chose his words—caused me to feel abandoned, as if I’d been played for a fool. This usually mild-mannered priest erupted and upbraided me for failing to see the correctness of what PF said

And that’s without getting to his thoughts on atheists and what’s needed to get into Heaven. I read that, looked at my daughter, whom I am left to educate in the faith on my own, because she certainly doesn’t hear. see, or experience anything particularly religious, let alone Catholic, at the Novus Ordo, and her “Catholic” school has crucifixes in the classroom, but that’s about it, and thought how well can I alone transmit the faith to her, particularly when the institution to which she will look for corroboration and support for her beliefs and practices and what I am teaching her—about the Real Presence, about the sacraments, about reverence, about adoration, about Heaven, hell, sin, and Satan, about fighting evil, about the one true Catholic Church—and she will find instead whatever entirely Protestantized, ecumenical, lukewarm, relativistic, mawkish, militantly humble (when you’re the pope and you buy a Chevy, that’s fine; when you’re the Pope and go out of your way to buy a 35 year old car, you’re a show off), and supercilious (hmmm…sounds like a certain other world leader) mess PF leaves behind.

Posted by Godless Goddess on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 8:14 PM (EDT):

Posted by Don”
Ben -
Christ did dine with sinners but he didn’t mince words either. He was quite blunt. He told them to repent and believe or face condemnation. When he sent his disciples out, he told them to “shake the dust off their sandals” at any town that rejected his teaching, and that it would be worse for them on the Day of Judgment than it had been for Soddom & Gamorrah. Stern stuff. He didn’t tell them to do whatever their conscience tells them is good.
/
Is this not proselytization—by Jimmy’s definition?

Isn’t the headline to this piece somewhat irresponsible? The Pope did not say that, and the article does not state that it is correcting some publication that did say that. It simply appears to be an insincere way to pull in readers? Hopefully I am wrong.

- T
www.traditium.com

Posted by John M. on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 7:46 PM (EDT):

Rene posts:The most serious of evils that afflict the world these days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old.” Although I agree with the Pope that these are serious evils, are these the most serious of evils confronting the world today? Maybe I live in a different world than Pope Francis or my hierarchy of evils is radically wrong.”

I totally agree. What planet is the guy from? He is so shielded from reality if that is what he truly believes. Um, millions of abortions each year, same-sex marriage, the rampant new paganism, the secular schools and values, Islam taking over the world, etc. And he believes that the most serious evil is youth unemployment? Seriously? God help our Church.

Posted by Don on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 7:36 PM (EDT):

Btw…the previous comment by Don is from a different Don than the earlier one.

Posted by Don on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 7:30 PM (EDT):

I worry. I know I shouldn’t because the Holy Spirit moves where and how He wills, but I worry that this new “open” attitude will cause confusion within the Church, as people hear things that seem to appear different than what we have thought before (and why priests and bishops have to go on the record trying to explain what he meant). I am easily confused and I’m sure other Catholics are as well. It seems to me that the Pope’s first responsibility is to the flock of Christ and then, secondarily, to evangelize atheists. At least after a publicized interview he should perhaps deliver an address explaining what he meant in the interview. I find what he says confusing and hard to grasp his true meaning.
Perhaps this is why previous Popes rarely gave interviews.

Posted by tz7 on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 7:10 PM (EDT):

Is there any narrative pushed by the press and people who attack the church everyday that pope doesn’t believe?

is the pope ever going to listen to who own words about not saying too much.

Posted by Don on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 7:02 PM (EDT):

Ben - Yes, Jesus did offend a lot of people with his preaching. But, he did not say “Go, and do whatever your conscience tells you is good.” He said “Go, and sin no more.”

Posted by David W on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 6:48 PM (EDT):

@LHJ well said when you say “Always give the Pope the benifit of the doubt.”

Well said you too Jimmy. Given the number of Catholics judging the Pope, we need this.

Posted by Ben in SoCal on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 6:43 PM (EDT):

Don-

Christ outraged the zealots because the Messiah they were expecting was believed to be a military hero who would lead the Jewish people to a grand military victory over their occupiers. He outraged people with healing on the Sabbath. He countered conventional wisdom by his simple acts of kindness, which were interpreted as radical.

Agreed, though- he did not mince words.

Posted by LHJ on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 6:37 PM (EDT):

“Papal explanitor” very good and I think you are right about having work for a long time. I think we should discuss rules for interpreting the Pope. I have one. Always give the Pope the benifit of the doubt. He has a very endearing and engaging style. He is a brilliant person he is an expert in all things Catholic. He does not have to think about what he will say concerning his convictions being Catholic is part of his nature. It is not the things he says that cause trouble it is what people say he says. The “most serious of evils” is a good example. It does not have to mean that they are the most on the top ten list but they are most serious and maybe more so then many realize. The Pope is well able to handle the atheist.We need to calm down take deep breaths and let the Pope be the Pope. Peace be with you, lhj

Posted by Frater Bovious on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 6:30 PM (EDT):

Wow. It seems that the Pope is simply giving vocabulary lessons, rather sad that it all seems so confusing. What can possibly be confusing about what he says? Sure, if you don’t bother to find out exactly what he said, in context, then he can be pretty alarming - if one is looking to be alarmed.

It’s easy to twist things - I mean right there in Psalm 10:4 the BIBLE says “There is no God”! Gasp - Argh.

If people are genuinely confused about what the Pope has to say, perhaps they should deepen their knowledge of the faith. I suggest looking to the Catechism for starters, and steering clear of atheist journalists.

Posted by Don on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 6:25 PM (EDT):

Ben -

Christ did dine with sinners but he didn’t mince words either. He was quite blunt. He told them to repent and believe or face condemnation. When he sent his disciples out, he told them to “shake the dust off their sandals” at any town that rejected his teaching, and that it would be worse for them on the Day of Judgment than it had been for Soddom & Gamorrah. Stern stuff. He didn’t tell them to do whatever their conscience tells them is good.

Posted by Ben in SoCal on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 6:18 PM (EDT):

It’s sad that apparently genuine, nonjudgmental Christian charity has been lacking from the Catholic Church for so long, that good faithful Catholics can’t even recognize it? Are we the Church of Jesus Christ or the Church of Girolamo Savonarola?

Do people forget that Christ dined with sinners?

Posted by Peter on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 6:01 PM (EDT):

The way things are shaping up, Jimmy, it looks like you’re going to have a job for a long time. Is there a paid Vatican position: Papal Explanitor? Look into it. I know he’s not breaking new ground but there is vast need for mop up after nearly every encounter with the press.

Posted by Rene on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 6:01 PM (EDT):

It worries me that each time the Pope gives an interview, Jimmy Akin and other faithful Catholics, need to clarify what he says. Can he communicate in interviews without confusing many of the faithful? Also I wonder sometimes whether I live in the same world he lives. For example, in this same interview he states “The most serious of evils that afflict the world these days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old.” Although I agree with the Pope that these are serious evils, are these the most serious of evils confronting the world today? Maybe I live in a different world than Pope Francis or my hierarchy of evils is radically wrong.

Posted by Don on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 5:54 PM (EDT):

I could really use just one week without another Papal interview that shocks the conscience of believing Catholics, thanks. One of the things that really comes through in his interviews is the disdain with which he holds the post-Vatican II Church as it developed under his two immediate predecessors. He is highly critical of it. This time it is papal leprosy, a Vatican-focused curia, and failure to be ecumenical enough to fulfill the wishes of the Council Fathers. It the the absolute antithesis of humility. I fear the atheist’s take at the end of this interview: “If the Church becomes like him and becomes what he wants it to be, it will be an epochal change.”

Posted by Yae on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 5:50 PM (EDT):

“When you combine this with the perception that everyone who posts on a blog seems like a theological scholar, it’s small wonder that the Holy Father comes off badly. Perhaps the problem isn’t with him, but with us.”

I agree. Too much mud slinging to even consider taking these folks into account. I much rather read concise and reasonable arguments by those who study and carefully consider all before even giving their opinions about what our Holy father is saying.

Too many complain about his so-called “off the cuff” remarks…talk about calling the kettle black! One need only read the disrespectful, reactionary replies to understand how much many lack in charity and respect towards the Holy Father. What they post is much more scandalous than anything he could ever say.

Thanks again Jimmy for a job well done.

Posted by Godless Goddess on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 5:17 PM (EDT):

What about Pope Francis’ quote:
/

“I believe in God, not in a Catholic God. There is no Catholic God; there is God, and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my being.”

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-gives-new-interview#ixzz2gVVm5v2q
/
Doesn’t this suggest that he is separating himself from the rest of the Catholic Church, and the Church’s agenda to abolish abortion, etc.?

Posted by Rob B. on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 5:12 PM (EDT):

I love the “Monday-morning quarterbacking” that happens here. It shows such depth of humility and trust in the Holy Spirit. . . :(
.
Consider, friends, for a moment whether or not the words of any other pope in history have been dissected to this level. I doubt that even Pope Gregory the Great or Pope Leo the Great would have come out ahead in the circus of the modern media. When you combine this with the perception that everyone who posts on a blog seems like a theological scholar, it’s small wonder that the Holy Father comes off badly. Perhaps the problem isn’t with him, but with us.

Posted by pete1956 on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 5:05 PM (EDT):

Sad to say but when this Pope speaks I cringe.

Posted by Nishant on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 5:01 PM (EDT):

I won’t lie, my heart broke on reading the interview. The enemies of the Faith will only feel confirmed in their errors. This only makes me feel slightly better.

Posted by Rob B. on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 5:00 PM (EDT):

@Charles—Or he knows that his intended audience would not be affected by them. The first rule of preaching (indeed, of any oratory) is “Know your audience.”

Posted by Sarah Lentz on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 4:55 PM (EDT):

It’s a relief to read this after receiving an e-mail from a well-meaning friend with a snippet of an article by John Vennari with the latter’s response to this interview. He finished it with the words, “He’s worse than we thought!”
Thank you for the sane and charitable verbal antidote.

Posted by charles harmett on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 4:40 PM (EDT):

This pope rarely if ever references scripture, tradition, or the magisterial teachings. Either he doesn’t know these or has discarded them in favor of his own interpretation of Catholicism. That is absolute arrogance.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

About Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant pastor or seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith. Eventually, he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is a Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to This Rock magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."